Well, now that Jam Master Jay and Stephen King are both dead, I figured we'd fill a gap by starting a Horror-Rap band. I just don't know how we're going to make money selling open-source music.
Good point. On the other hand, enough angry posts may get someone to actually take action. After all, it only took one Ralph Nader to change the automobile industry, how many people will it take to change the computer industry?
In my ideal world, people throughout Africa, India, and Asia learn and become comfortable with open-source software. Then, US corporations get sick of dealing with Microsoft's heavy-handed business practices, and finally decide to switch to open-source alternatives. Where can they find qualified employees? Surprise, the "third world", where people have been using OSOSs (open-source OSs) since they were children. This, my friends, is globalization. I'm tempted to move to Africa to unionize their computer professionals.
Exactly! One of the first questions a decent VC will ask you if you're trying to get funding for a company is "What's the barrier to entry?" I.e., what will keep another company (with potentially much larger resources) from just duplicating what you did and selling it for a cheaper price (since they didn't have to do the R&D or the market testing)? With a company like Microsoft in the picture, the answer for software companies is typically "nothing." VCs don't like to hear that answer, and consequently many good ideas never get off the ground. The net result is that the ideas these enterpreneurs had never see the light of day, because no one could be convinced that they would be profitable. Preventing Microsoft from squashing smaller companies like bugs (if only they would squash bugs the way they squash smaller competitors, but that's another story for another thread) could potentially go a long way toward promoting innovation.
You're not drawing a distinction between sole-source and monopoly. Most definitions of the word monopoly refer to exclusive ownership or control, but one definition says "a commodity controlled by one party" (from m-w.com). From the US government's point of view, having a 95% share in a market constitutes an effective monopoly (okay, I pulled that number out of my ass, but it's probably about right in this case). Sure, there are alternatives, but they aren't practical in most cases (see my example below).
You say "A company shouldn't be penalized for being successful...." This is entirely true, and this is why anti-trust laws were written very carefully. Companies are not punished for being monopolies. If your company makes product A so well that no one else can compete, great! However, companies are punished for using their monopoly in one market to wedge their way into other market rather than competing based on the merits of their product. This is exactly what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer (which, if you remember, was distinctly worse than Netscape Navigator until Microsoft used their monopoly powers to force IE on everyone).
I'm sick of hearing from people who think monopolies are bad, or who think this case is about Microsoft being a monopoly. It's not. This case is about Microsoft abusing their monopoly to gain control of other markets. The true importance of this case only comes to light when you consider that just about every company in the US (and maybe in the world) depends on Microsoft software to run their computers, and thereby to run their business.
To put it in concrete terms: let's say you want to start a business selling widgets. You've come up with and patented a method for making widgets that are twice as good and cost half as much as those of your competitors. Now you just need to set up a computer network to control your manufacturing, sales, and distribution network. Since you're a big fan of open-source software, you've built your distribution system using FreeBSD, Linux, or your OSOS (open-source operating system; not to be confused with ZOSO, a popular name for a certain Zeppelin album) of choice. However, you find that the available talent for your secretarial pool (or, in this day and age, the temps you hire) only know Windows, so you buy them a bunch of computers running Windows FU. Suddenly you get a cease-and-desist letter from Microsoft that says that under the terms of the license agreement (which the temps you hired that day clicked through when you set up the machines), you're only allowed to sell widgets if all of your computers have up-to-date licenses for Windows FU, and then you can only sell them at the prices Microsoft dictates. Suddenly you're in a position where Microsoft is controlling your business practices, but you can't tell them to sod off because your secretaries only know Windows. Admittedly this is an extreme example, but without control, Microsoft could have somewhat more subtle but no less disturbing effects on the global economy. Before being broken up, AT&T could've done the same thing. If we need laws to make sure that the companies supplying phone service obey common decency, then why should we be surprised to need similar laws in the computer industry?
Sorry, but breaking up the company has already been thrown out. That can't be an option. Thanks for playing though. Hope that helps.
Actually, that's not true. Judge Jackson's ruling has been thrown out, because of questions over his impartiality, and the case was sent back for re-evaluation. However, Kollar-Kotelly is perfectly within her rights to decide that a breakup is the right thing to do after all. Of course, she's a different person and may have a different opinion than Jackson, but she's certainly allowed to have the same opinion.
For that matter, how long has the x86 architecture been defined? How many/. readers were even alive when the 8086 was released? I know I felt a few grey hairs pop out when a co-worker told me his first computer was a 286. Only superficial changes in computer architecture have happened during our lifetimes. The way we interact with computers is totally archaic, just like the way we interact with banks, cars, washing machines, and televisions is archaic. The world is dying for some clever person to come up with a way to make it just as easy to ask a machine to do something as it is to ask a person to do something.
This is an excellent point. IANAL, but I think they can only base the cost of the theft on (1) the market value of the items stolen, or (2) actual (not potential) loss of revenue resulting from the theft. It sounds like they wouldn't have much of a case with (2), so they're going with (1) and arguing that most of the items have a high collectible value. If they could argue potential losses, the guy would probably be charged with millions in theft....
Wrong. Doctors are not scientists, that's why we have two separate words. Doctors spend their days taking care of sick people, and finding better ways to take care of sick people. Doctors are also trained to express confidence (and in fact to feel confidence) even when they really don't know the answer to a question.
Scientists, on the other hand, spend their days trying to understand the physical world around them. They are trained to question every statement they hear, and to allow every accepted fact to modify their previously held beliefs. Scientists don't care if their explanations aren't practical, as long as they're not provably wrong.
While we're at it, engineers are not scientists either. Engineers are trained to come up with practical solutions to practical problems. This process typically involves simplifying the problem to one they know how to solve. They don't care if the solution isn't Truth with a capital T, as long as it solves the problem they're interested in.
Of course, there are people who are any and all combinations of these different fields. However, that doesn't change the fact that the fields are fundamentally different, and it's a mistake to equate them. You wouldn't ask a scientist to diagnose your chest pain, you wouldn't ask a doctor to build a microwave circuit, and you wouldn't ask an engineer to interpret the human genome.
Its odd that they make a big thing out of finding the forgery though. What does that buy them? Why not say "Ouch!" fire him and move on?
This was a big thing long before the decision. Many of the original papers showed up in the journal Science, and that same journal has had multiple articles about the alleged (I guess now proved) misconduct lately. Add to this the fact that Bell Labs is going under, so most of their employees are actively searching for new jobs - it would be much harder for them if people think "oh, they're from Bell Labs, they probably just made up these results anyway...." Bell Labs had to act decisively to save their reputation.
it could still be argued (successfully) that the emulator would have a negative impact on potential future revenue of LucasArts products, such as a LucasArts Classics package for BSD.
And it could be counter-argued (successfully) that if LucasArts simply used ScummVM as the engine for the aforementioned LucasArts Classics package, they would save a buttload of cash (one buttload = the NIST standard for large sums of money) by not having to develop their own engine -- even if they paid the ScummVM developers for their work rather than just redistributing it freely under its current license. The revenue is in the content, not the engine. Since LucasArts clearly still control the content, the potential revenue stream is entirely in their control. You could argue that the potential market is reduced because hardcore fans already own copies of the game, but those same fans would probably rather play the game off of one CD than 26 floppies.
Gene patenting will ultimately destroy corporate biotechnology. The ultimate goal of any corporation is easy to define. It's to create a product that everyone has to buy over and over again. So far, fortunately, no corporation has been able to achieve this goal. With gene patents, however, the goal becomes possible.
The scenario is (hopefully still many years away, but) this: Company M gets a patent for a gene to confer immunity to some virus V. Company M then release grain strain G that resists all kinds of herbicidal drugs, but also has a high susceptibility to virus V. G gets out into the wild (accidentally, ha ha), and because of superior engineering, spreads and dominates grain fields throughout the world. Suddenly, through a "random change" in the biosphere, humans all over the world are exposed to virus V. The only known cure involves the gene patented by company M. So everyone has to buy their tablets from company M every week. Of course, the tablets are priced to cost 75% of the average American's salary -- after all, what is your life worth (and who cares about people in other countries, anyway -- they have no money)?
The only reasonable response from any government is to invalidate the patent, and send all the corporate executives to prison where they will earn the nickname "Flexible Betty". Meanwhile, billions of people die because company M is legally bound to maximize profits to their stockholders, and it's just not fiscally responsible to give the drugs out for free. Ultimately, governments everywhere realize that allowing patents on genetic material is a bad idea. So eventually the system regulates itself, but in the meantime a large number of people die so that a minority can increase the value of their portfolios. Makes me think that stockholders should, as owners, be held legally responsible for the behavior of the companies they own, but that's another post in itself.
Here's a potential solution for mod writers who don't want Bioware to cop the rights to their work. Simply add your own EULA to the mod when you distribute it. This license can say something to the effect of "this mod may be redistributed free of charge, as long as this file is included with it. Under no circumstances shall this mod be offered for sale, rent, lease, or included in any collection offered for sale, rent, or lease without the express permission of the author." That way, the issue becomes a matter of competing EULAs, which would most likely take a court battle to resolve. Bioware would probably rather not include the mod than run the risk of a costly lawsuit that could potentially invalidate an important part of their EULA.
You think that's bad? Imagine doing tech support for the companies that wrote those games! I still have nightmares:
Customer: My Lemmings won't go!
Me: Oh, you've hit the "paws" button, ha ha!
Customer: No, I click on the Lemmings and nothing happens!
Me: Hrm... what kind of sound card do you have?
Customer: I think it's a Cadillac.
Me: I see. Do you have the disk in the drive?
Customer: I don't know, this thing says it needs two Emm Bee of Arr Ay Emm, but I only have eight of my hard drive! And there's something about DOS, but I don't speak Spanish!
Me: Oh, are you running Windows?
Customer: No, I'm at work.
Me: What do you see on your screen right now?
Customer: It says "please insert disk 1 into your floppy drive."
Me: Ahh. Let's try inserting disk 1 into your floppy drive.
Customer: Hang on... [interminable pause] The computer doesn't like it.
Me: Doesn't like it?!?
Customer: It spit it back out.
Me: Hrm, sounds like a defective disk. What does it say on the label?
Customer: It says "Lemmings Disk 1."
Me: Aha! Turn the disk around 180 degrees, then stick it into your computer again.
Customer: Oooohhhh!
Me: So it's working now?
Customer: Yes! No, now it says it can't find disk 1. That's funny, 'cos it worked for my friend who I copied it from!
Me: Arrrrrrrgh!
And those were the *good* conversations. The bad ones involved many more expletives. The really bad ones involved expletives and tricky level 19 (for those of you still stuck there, buy my damn book!).
no matter what, if the box is rooted, the data will be taken.
Well, you could set root's shell to/bin/false, which would make it significantly more difficult (although still not impossible) for a remote user to do anything dangerous after rooting your machine. Of course, you'd have to boot your server from a floppy every time you wanted to do maintenance....
Honestly, though, the right thing to do is to store the sensitive info in write-only memory.
The main problem is the terrible efficiency at which the current collection methods operate.
My old '77 VW Rabbit was an incredibly efficient collector of solar energy. I'd walk away for 5 minutes, and it'd be boiling hot in there. Imagine if we had a Beowulf cluster of those....
I agree. The Dell QuietKey keyboards is one of the nicest keyboards I've ever used. The others are (in order):
The keyboard that came with a Sun SparcStation (not sure what version, sorry). It's got just the right level of squishiness, without feeling like you're typing into a pillow.
The Microsoft Internet Keyboard Pro. Regardless of what you think of the company, this is a nice keyboard. It's just a tiny bit too squishy, but otherwise it's almost perfect. This is what I'm using now, in place of a $2.99 used keyboard that typed ` strokes randomly.
The keyboard that came with an Amiga 1000. Absolutely beautiful design. This one would top the list, but I can't use it on any of my current computers.
I should point out that I hate the split keyboards, for one simple reason. While being trained as a touch-typist (100+ wpm), I discovered that the "6" key is actually closer to the left index finger than to the right index finger. So I ignored my lessons and learned to use the left finger to hit it, and as a result I could type numbers faster. However, all of those split keyboards put 6 on the right, so whenever I try to type on one of those I end up smacking plastic rather than hitting the 6 key I was going for. I may be the only person bothered by this, but it drives me nuts!
How many of you can actually operate a gui without a mouse?
Back in my Amiga days, I never used the mouse just to operate the gui. Holding down the left-Amiga key and using the arrows accomplished the same thing as moving the mouse, and I never had to take my hands off the keyboard. The shift key allowed coarse movements. There were also simple keyboard shortcuts (which I've long forgotten now) for clicking the left and right mouse buttons. Current GUIs allow something similar, but it's never been quite as convenient. I miss that functionality.
My apologies in advance for starting an Amiga-vs-everything-else flame war.
Now that you mention it, I used this same technique during my addicted-to-Diablo-II phase, when I couldn't count on myself to remember to take breaks. It worked pretty well, as long as I had the towel in the right place. Good call!
...but only for musicians who play their instruments 6+ hours every day.
You're overlooking a large group of people -- those who have jobs and hobbies. There are three things I do with my life, all of which have the potential for wrist injury and/or RSI (there used to be four, but then I got a girlfriend). At work, I spend a great deal of time in front of a computer. As a hobby I play bass, and for exercise I cycle (if you think cycling can't hurt your wrists, you've never spent 2 hours on a road bike). If I weren't awfully careful about my wrists, this combination of activities would put me in the hospital in no time flat. My solutions are:
Minimize the amount of weight I put on my wrists (I would say never put weight on them, but that's hard to do when you're cycling; you need some weight on the front wheel to control the bike).
Minimize the bending of my wrists. Often this requires building up other muscles to compensate (as does the previous point), but given time it's doable.
Take breaks! I can't stress this enough. When typing, I walk away and look out the window for a minute (this is good for my eyes, too). When playing, I relax between songs and stretch. When biking, I change my hand position once in a while (that's why bikes have handlebars and not just one grip spot, like they use in time trials).
Make sure I get good circulation in my fingers. If I ever feel any part of my body getting numb, I change my position or stop until I get my circulation back! Then I wait another minute before starting again.
Funny... when I rest my forearm, the pressure on it (caused by the corner of the table) tends to cut off the circulation in my arm. The best solution for me is to let nothing but my fingertips touch anything. This requires more arm strength, but that also guarantees that I don't use the keyboard/mouse for too long at once. Sometimes when I'm lazy I'll let my palm sit on the mouse, but I'm careful never to move my wrists.
Also, I keep my wrists straight with my elbows bent outwards when I'm typing on a normal keyboard. When I'm in home position, my index fingers are nearly straight and the rest of my fingers are curled. Reaching up to the top row (and sometimes, down to the bottom row) sometimes requires moving my whole arm, but I never bend my wrist. I think keeping the wrist straight and flat is the key to avoiding RSI.
Too much pr0n makes you go blind, causing you to lean closer to your monitor. The resulting bad posture leads to RSI. So if you plan to spend an extended period of time looking at pr0n, get yourself a 21" monitor and set your display to 640x480, then lean way back. You might need a larger virtual desktop, so you can scroll around and see all the good bits, but your health is worth it.
Some researchers disagree with these conclusions, arguing that the primary effect of too much pr0n is hairy palms, which serve the same function as wrist rests. Research into this effect is ongoing.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, now that Jam Master Jay and Stephen King are both dead, I figured we'd fill a gap by starting a Horror-Rap band. I just don't know how we're going to make money selling open-source music.
Good point. On the other hand, enough angry posts may get someone to actually take action. After all, it only took one Ralph Nader to change the automobile industry, how many people will it take to change the computer industry?
P.S. I love the word "Slashturbation"!
In my ideal world, people throughout Africa, India, and Asia learn and become comfortable with open-source software. Then, US corporations get sick of dealing with Microsoft's heavy-handed business practices, and finally decide to switch to open-source alternatives. Where can they find qualified employees? Surprise, the "third world", where people have been using OSOSs (open-source OSs) since they were children. This, my friends, is globalization. I'm tempted to move to Africa to unionize their computer professionals.
Exactly! One of the first questions a decent VC will ask you if you're trying to get funding for a company is "What's the barrier to entry?" I.e., what will keep another company (with potentially much larger resources) from just duplicating what you did and selling it for a cheaper price (since they didn't have to do the R&D or the market testing)? With a company like Microsoft in the picture, the answer for software companies is typically "nothing." VCs don't like to hear that answer, and consequently many good ideas never get off the ground. The net result is that the ideas these enterpreneurs had never see the light of day, because no one could be convinced that they would be profitable. Preventing Microsoft from squashing smaller companies like bugs (if only they would squash bugs the way they squash smaller competitors, but that's another story for another thread) could potentially go a long way toward promoting innovation.
You're not drawing a distinction between sole-source and monopoly. Most definitions of the word monopoly refer to exclusive ownership or control, but one definition says "a commodity controlled by one party" (from m-w.com). From the US government's point of view, having a 95% share in a market constitutes an effective monopoly (okay, I pulled that number out of my ass, but it's probably about right in this case). Sure, there are alternatives, but they aren't practical in most cases (see my example below).
You say "A company shouldn't be penalized for being successful...." This is entirely true, and this is why anti-trust laws were written very carefully. Companies are not punished for being monopolies. If your company makes product A so well that no one else can compete, great! However, companies are punished for using their monopoly in one market to wedge their way into other market rather than competing based on the merits of their product. This is exactly what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer (which, if you remember, was distinctly worse than Netscape Navigator until Microsoft used their monopoly powers to force IE on everyone).
I'm sick of hearing from people who think monopolies are bad, or who think this case is about Microsoft being a monopoly. It's not. This case is about Microsoft abusing their monopoly to gain control of other markets. The true importance of this case only comes to light when you consider that just about every company in the US (and maybe in the world) depends on Microsoft software to run their computers, and thereby to run their business.
To put it in concrete terms: let's say you want to start a business selling widgets. You've come up with and patented a method for making widgets that are twice as good and cost half as much as those of your competitors. Now you just need to set up a computer network to control your manufacturing, sales, and distribution network. Since you're a big fan of open-source software, you've built your distribution system using FreeBSD, Linux, or your OSOS (open-source operating system; not to be confused with ZOSO, a popular name for a certain Zeppelin album) of choice. However, you find that the available talent for your secretarial pool (or, in this day and age, the temps you hire) only know Windows, so you buy them a bunch of computers running Windows FU. Suddenly you get a cease-and-desist letter from Microsoft that says that under the terms of the license agreement (which the temps you hired that day clicked through when you set up the machines), you're only allowed to sell widgets if all of your computers have up-to-date licenses for Windows FU, and then you can only sell them at the prices Microsoft dictates. Suddenly you're in a position where Microsoft is controlling your business practices, but you can't tell them to sod off because your secretaries only know Windows. Admittedly this is an extreme example, but without control, Microsoft could have somewhat more subtle but no less disturbing effects on the global economy. Before being broken up, AT&T could've done the same thing. If we need laws to make sure that the companies supplying phone service obey common decency, then why should we be surprised to need similar laws in the computer industry?
Sorry, but breaking up the company has already been thrown out. That can't be an option. Thanks for playing though. Hope that helps.
Actually, that's not true. Judge Jackson's ruling has been thrown out, because of questions over his impartiality, and the case was sent back for re-evaluation. However, Kollar-Kotelly is perfectly within her rights to decide that a breakup is the right thing to do after all. Of course, she's a different person and may have a different opinion than Jackson, but she's certainly allowed to have the same opinion.
For that matter, how long has the x86 architecture been defined? How many /. readers were even alive when the 8086 was released? I know I felt a few grey hairs pop out when a co-worker told me his first computer was a 286. Only superficial changes in computer architecture have happened during our lifetimes. The way we interact with computers is totally archaic, just like the way we interact with banks, cars, washing machines, and televisions is archaic. The world is dying for some clever person to come up with a way to make it just as easy to ask a machine to do something as it is to ask a person to do something.
This is an excellent point. IANAL, but I think they can only base the cost of the theft on (1) the market value of the items stolen, or (2) actual (not potential) loss of revenue resulting from the theft. It sounds like they wouldn't have much of a case with (2), so they're going with (1) and arguing that most of the items have a high collectible value. If they could argue potential losses, the guy would probably be charged with millions in theft....
Doctors are scientists too.
Wrong. Doctors are not scientists, that's why we have two separate words. Doctors spend their days taking care of sick people, and finding better ways to take care of sick people. Doctors are also trained to express confidence (and in fact to feel confidence) even when they really don't know the answer to a question.
Scientists, on the other hand, spend their days trying to understand the physical world around them. They are trained to question every statement they hear, and to allow every accepted fact to modify their previously held beliefs. Scientists don't care if their explanations aren't practical, as long as they're not provably wrong.
While we're at it, engineers are not scientists either. Engineers are trained to come up with practical solutions to practical problems. This process typically involves simplifying the problem to one they know how to solve. They don't care if the solution isn't Truth with a capital T, as long as it solves the problem they're interested in.
Of course, there are people who are any and all combinations of these different fields. However, that doesn't change the fact that the fields are fundamentally different, and it's a mistake to equate them. You wouldn't ask a scientist to diagnose your chest pain, you wouldn't ask a doctor to build a microwave circuit, and you wouldn't ask an engineer to interpret the human genome.
Its odd that they make a big thing out of finding the forgery though. What does that buy them? Why not say "Ouch!" fire him and move on?
This was a big thing long before the decision. Many of the original papers showed up in the journal Science, and that same journal has had multiple articles about the alleged (I guess now proved) misconduct lately. Add to this the fact that Bell Labs is going under, so most of their employees are actively searching for new jobs - it would be much harder for them if people think "oh, they're from Bell Labs, they probably just made up these results anyway...." Bell Labs had to act decisively to save their reputation.
it could still be argued (successfully) that the emulator would have a negative impact on potential future revenue of LucasArts products, such as a LucasArts Classics package for BSD.
And it could be counter-argued (successfully) that if LucasArts simply used ScummVM as the engine for the aforementioned LucasArts Classics package, they would save a buttload of cash (one buttload = the NIST standard for large sums of money) by not having to develop their own engine -- even if they paid the ScummVM developers for their work rather than just redistributing it freely under its current license. The revenue is in the content, not the engine. Since LucasArts clearly still control the content, the potential revenue stream is entirely in their control. You could argue that the potential market is reduced because hardcore fans already own copies of the game, but those same fans would probably rather play the game off of one CD than 26 floppies.
If this device could really stop piracy, I'm sure the RIAA would have their hands on one by now.
Oh, sorry, I'm dyslexic today. Never mind.
Gene patenting will ultimately destroy corporate biotechnology. The ultimate goal of any corporation is easy to define. It's to create a product that everyone has to buy over and over again. So far, fortunately, no corporation has been able to achieve this goal. With gene patents, however, the goal becomes possible.
The scenario is (hopefully still many years away, but) this: Company M gets a patent for a gene to confer immunity to some virus V. Company M then release grain strain G that resists all kinds of herbicidal drugs, but also has a high susceptibility to virus V. G gets out into the wild (accidentally, ha ha), and because of superior engineering, spreads and dominates grain fields throughout the world. Suddenly, through a "random change" in the biosphere, humans all over the world are exposed to virus V. The only known cure involves the gene patented by company M. So everyone has to buy their tablets from company M every week. Of course, the tablets are priced to cost 75% of the average American's salary -- after all, what is your life worth (and who cares about people in other countries, anyway -- they have no money)?
The only reasonable response from any government is to invalidate the patent, and send all the corporate executives to prison where they will earn the nickname "Flexible Betty". Meanwhile, billions of people die because company M is legally bound to maximize profits to their stockholders, and it's just not fiscally responsible to give the drugs out for free. Ultimately, governments everywhere realize that allowing patents on genetic material is a bad idea. So eventually the system regulates itself, but in the meantime a large number of people die so that a minority can increase the value of their portfolios. Makes me think that stockholders should, as owners, be held legally responsible for the behavior of the companies they own, but that's another post in itself.
Here's a potential solution for mod writers who don't want Bioware to cop the rights to their work. Simply add your own EULA to the mod when you distribute it. This license can say something to the effect of "this mod may be redistributed free of charge, as long as this file is included with it. Under no circumstances shall this mod be offered for sale, rent, lease, or included in any collection offered for sale, rent, or lease without the express permission of the author." That way, the issue becomes a matter of competing EULAs, which would most likely take a court battle to resolve. Bioware would probably rather not include the mod than run the risk of a costly lawsuit that could potentially invalidate an important part of their EULA.
You think that's bad? Imagine doing tech support for the companies that wrote those games! I still have nightmares: Customer: My Lemmings won't go!
Me: Oh, you've hit the "paws" button, ha ha!
Customer: No, I click on the Lemmings and nothing happens!
Me: Hrm... what kind of sound card do you have?
Customer: I think it's a Cadillac.
Me: I see. Do you have the disk in the drive?
Customer: I don't know, this thing says it needs two Emm Bee of Arr Ay Emm, but I only have eight of my hard drive! And there's something about DOS, but I don't speak Spanish!
Me: Oh, are you running Windows?
Customer: No, I'm at work.
Me: What do you see on your screen right now?
Customer: It says "please insert disk 1 into your floppy drive."
Me: Ahh. Let's try inserting disk 1 into your floppy drive.
Customer: Hang on... [interminable pause] The computer doesn't like it.
Me: Doesn't like it?!?
Customer: It spit it back out.
Me: Hrm, sounds like a defective disk. What does it say on the label?
Customer: It says "Lemmings Disk 1."
Me: Aha! Turn the disk around 180 degrees, then stick it into your computer again.
Customer: Oooohhhh!
Me: So it's working now?
Customer: Yes! No, now it says it can't find disk 1. That's funny, 'cos it worked for my friend who I copied it from!
Me: Arrrrrrrgh!
And those were the *good* conversations. The bad ones involved many more expletives. The really bad ones involved expletives and tricky level 19 (for those of you still stuck there, buy my damn book!).
For that matter, you could make a Mobius sword with only one side. That kind of weapon could really turn someone inside-out.
no matter what, if the box is rooted, the data will be taken. Well, you could set root's shell to /bin/false, which would make it significantly more difficult (although still not impossible) for a remote user to do anything dangerous after rooting your machine. Of course, you'd have to boot your server from a floppy every time you wanted to do maintenance....
Honestly, though, the right thing to do is to store the sensitive info in write-only memory.
The main problem is the terrible efficiency at which the current collection methods operate.
My old '77 VW Rabbit was an incredibly efficient collector of solar energy. I'd walk away for 5 minutes, and it'd be boiling hot in there. Imagine if we had a Beowulf cluster of those....
The keyboard that came with a Sun SparcStation (not sure what version, sorry). It's got just the right level of squishiness, without feeling like you're typing into a pillow.
The Microsoft Internet Keyboard Pro. Regardless of what you think of the company, this is a nice keyboard. It's just a tiny bit too squishy, but otherwise it's almost perfect. This is what I'm using now, in place of a $2.99 used keyboard that typed ` strokes randomly.
The keyboard that came with an Amiga 1000. Absolutely beautiful design. This one would top the list, but I can't use it on any of my current computers.
I should point out that I hate the split keyboards, for one simple reason. While being trained as a touch-typist (100+ wpm), I discovered that the "6" key is actually closer to the left index finger than to the right index finger. So I ignored my lessons and learned to use the left finger to hit it, and as a result I could type numbers faster. However, all of those split keyboards put 6 on the right, so whenever I try to type on one of those I end up smacking plastic rather than hitting the 6 key I was going for. I may be the only person bothered by this, but it drives me nuts!
How many of you can actually operate a gui without a mouse?
Back in my Amiga days, I never used the mouse just to operate the gui. Holding down the left-Amiga key and using the arrows accomplished the same thing as moving the mouse, and I never had to take my hands off the keyboard. The shift key allowed coarse movements. There were also simple keyboard shortcuts (which I've long forgotten now) for clicking the left and right mouse buttons. Current GUIs allow something similar, but it's never been quite as convenient. I miss that functionality.
My apologies in advance for starting an Amiga-vs-everything-else flame war.
Now that you mention it, I used this same technique during my addicted-to-Diablo-II phase, when I couldn't count on myself to remember to take breaks. It worked pretty well, as long as I had the towel in the right place. Good call!
You're overlooking a large group of people -- those who have jobs and hobbies. There are three things I do with my life, all of which have the potential for wrist injury and/or RSI (there used to be four, but then I got a girlfriend). At work, I spend a great deal of time in front of a computer. As a hobby I play bass, and for exercise I cycle (if you think cycling can't hurt your wrists, you've never spent 2 hours on a road bike). If I weren't awfully careful about my wrists, this combination of activities would put me in the hospital in no time flat. My solutions are:
Minimize the amount of weight I put on my wrists (I would say never put weight on them, but that's hard to do when you're cycling; you need some weight on the front wheel to control the bike).
Minimize the bending of my wrists. Often this requires building up other muscles to compensate (as does the previous point), but given time it's doable.
Take breaks! I can't stress this enough. When typing, I walk away and look out the window for a minute (this is good for my eyes, too). When playing, I relax between songs and stretch. When biking, I change my hand position once in a while (that's why bikes have handlebars and not just one grip spot, like they use in time trials).
Make sure I get good circulation in my fingers. If I ever feel any part of my body getting numb, I change my position or stop until I get my circulation back! Then I wait another minute before starting again.
Funny... when I rest my forearm, the pressure on it (caused by the corner of the table) tends to cut off the circulation in my arm. The best solution for me is to let nothing but my fingertips touch anything. This requires more arm strength, but that also guarantees that I don't use the keyboard/mouse for too long at once. Sometimes when I'm lazy I'll let my palm sit on the mouse, but I'm careful never to move my wrists.
Also, I keep my wrists straight with my elbows bent outwards when I'm typing on a normal keyboard. When I'm in home position, my index fingers are nearly straight and the rest of my fingers are curled. Reaching up to the top row (and sometimes, down to the bottom row) sometimes requires moving my whole arm, but I never bend my wrist. I think keeping the wrist straight and flat is the key to avoiding RSI.
Too much pr0n makes you go blind, causing you to lean closer to your monitor. The resulting bad posture leads to RSI. So if you plan to spend an extended period of time looking at pr0n, get yourself a 21" monitor and set your display to 640x480, then lean way back. You might need a larger virtual desktop, so you can scroll around and see all the good bits, but your health is worth it.
Some researchers disagree with these conclusions, arguing that the primary effect of too much pr0n is hairy palms, which serve the same function as wrist rests. Research into this effect is ongoing.