It reminds me of an old Bloom County cartoon. Oliver Wendell Jones is sitting in front of the TV that is announcing that (paraphrased) "You are a major dork weenie if you don't have a Captain Death action figure!" His mother, horrified, goes to his father to complain who is also watching TV and being told "You are a major bolchevik weenie if you don't vote for Senator Biggums". (again, I've paraphrased - the cartoon is better).
How does that apply to Amazon? Go check out Microsoft. If you want to be widely successfull like Microsoft, you should be reading TechBook, Second Edition just like them! Buy it now (even if you never would have thought to by yourself)! Say... everyone else in my town is reading LameStory... what am I missing out on? Buy it now! Etc, etc...
The PIII ID code doesn't broadcast itself, you know.
I'm unaware of ANYONE claiming the PIII ID broadcasts itself.
The three points I brought up still stand: what is the function of the ID? The ID can not be removed by the user (unlike so ftware ID methods) and CAN be activated without user concent. And finally, the ID was to be shipped activated by default.
The only valid issues I've ever seen raised about the PIII's ID code were concerns over some ill-conceived applications that did not properly consider security and/or privacy. However, such issues should be dealt with separately from the existance of the ID (which is not in and of itself a bad thing), since it is possible to do these same bad things without resorting to the use a microprocessor's ID code.
I would argue that the two issues have a much closer relationship. The fact that this identification technology was being announced in the same breath of ill-conceived applications is very telling. The whole idea behind the ID was to provide those very types of services! Ill-conceived indeed.
Software identification concepts have also been tried. Cookies. Some users are accepting of them. Many are not - features to disable cookies went from third-party add-ons to rolled in features on major browsers. Once again, a software based technology is easy to foil once it is identified. The hard-coded ID number is impossible to remove.
I do agree on one point. The fear over the PIII ID was overly hyped. The media seemed to harp on it for an overly extended period of time. I'm sure the general populous ended up fearing the PIII ID without any real clear idea of WHY they should.
The Pentium III ID code can easily be changed. Unplug the Pentium III chip.
That's not changing code, that's replacing hardware. Why should I have to go through the expense and effort to change out hardware to avoid invasion of my privacy?
Much the same as the Unique, tracable, Ethernet MAC address that many of you have installed in your machine (if you have an Ethernet card installed) is removable.
Its easier than that. You can change the ID on your Ethernet card without removing it. But why should you HAVE to?
MAC addresses exist to facillitate various aspects of networking. You give up annonymity in return for working technology. Why does the PIII ID exist? What bennefit does it offer to users/consumers?
You do bring up an interesting point, however. Why should advertisers count on cookies to trace eyeballs? Why not snag the MAC address? Granted... this can be changed, but Joe User is unlikely to be aware of it or how to do it.
can you remember PIII hardware identification? This is the same thing.
On the surface, this might appear to be the same kind of thing. But there's a pretty big difference on serveral points.
First, the intent of d.net software is not to indentify and track an individual. Logging IP addresses, and consequently being able to convince an ISP to identify that address to a customer account, is a byproduct of system logs. Its a common convention to the net. I'm accepting of this since, generally, such logs are used for administrative purposes and discarded after a period of time. A smart business will have a policy to ensure these logs are dropped as soon as they become obsolete to avoid legal hassles ("Sure, we'd like to provide you that information and get caught up in your litigation... but we have a long-standing policy to delete logs after X days."). Less-intelligent companies use them as gimmicks. In this case, everyone was able to act fast enough on a good enough reason to track down a theif. Its a byproduct, not the origional intent.
Secondly, it is a software mechanism and not non-removable firmware. If, today, you decide you're just too uncomfortable with the whole idea of being able to be tracked via your d.net client... you can remove it. Delete it. It's gone. The PIII ID code could not be removed. And, furthermore, it could be activated without the user's knowlege.
Finally, as stated by other people... d.net software is an "opt in" system. The PIII ID origionally shipped activated; you had to run specialized code to deactivate it. The implication is that it required prior knowlege as well as additional effort to NOT report your identity and invade your privacy. The d.net client requires prior knowledge and additional effort to activate - by default it will never report your existance.
The whole idea of invasion of privacy is NOT the ability to be identified. The distinction is whether you consent to that identification.
1. Anyone mentioning Beowulf will be forced to write a doctoral thesis on parallel/cluster computing theory. You will also be required to install and configure a working Furby cluster.
You'd have to modify the Furbies and remove their little coughing/cold feature. Can you imagine a several hundred Furby cluster all coughing? Chattering alone is bad enough.
Can you rack-mount Furbies?
How would you network them? Would they do what even the US Marines won't do - go into "battle" with a cable hanging out of their butts?
If I was a naive RedHat shareholder who didn't understand fully their business I'd be pushing for RH to do something about Linux-Mandrake - because to me they'd just be profiting off RH's hard work.
I definately see this as an issue for RedHat. It would be naive to think investors in RedHat understand the unique environment RedHat is in. Conventional business "wisdom" may cause some pressure on RedHat. However, I'm not so sure its a given that this would cause RedHat to act.
Let's say Pointy Haired Investor (PHI) is upset because they see Mandrake (or SomeDistro) taking RedHat's offering, adding some tools, and doing well in the marketplace. "Dammit! We need to buy these guys out and get their technology," screams the PHI. "Yea. They have some nice tools," say RedHat, "We'll copy them for free and wrap them into our distribution. And it won't cost the company a cent."
This might be a bit strange to the PHI. Open Source makes for a strange business. After all, anyone (ie: CheapBytes) can sell copies of RedHat's product without one cent going to RedHat. It may put some investors into shock.
But this environment creates great opportunities for someone able to navigate it. Hopefully, RedHat will convince investors that they have a firm grip on the tiller. It'd be a shame to have a RedHat mutany creating a company of Corporate raiders.
I do think RedHat will have to refocus to the Enterprise.
I tend to agree. The money seems to be in "enterprise" solutions. Perhapse the desktop is a means to this? Gain mindshare with the desktop. Leverage mindshare to generate larger scale business.
But if I am going to read a 700 page novel, I think doing so on a Palm-sized screen would rapidly turn me insane.
This hasn't been my experience. I've read numerous amature stories, as well as some full scale books on my trusty well-abused Palm Pro. At first, I thought it was a great novelty to be reading books in this fashion. Then, with some shock once I realised it, I no longer conciously thought about reading on a PalmPilot. I was absorbed into the text as if I were holding a conventional paperback. The text size and quality didn't bother me at all. The backlight was a major plus since I tend to read in bed while my wife has gone to sleep and it negated the need for a nightstand light.
Of course, your tastes may differ.
Having said all that... I still like books. I definately would not seek out electronic copies of texts over their paper counterparts. However, I would pay a nominal fee for the service of converting my favorite texts into a handy electronic form.
I never liked the idea of electronic books as a replacement for printed ones.
I don't either. There's something about the tangability of books that is appealing. I like the feel of them. I like flipping the pages. I like putting them on my shelves and occasionally scanning over my favorites thinking "what do I feel like reading tonight?" And I like having them on display - and, consequently, its interesting to see what other people have on their shelves. You can't do this with electronic files.
Having said that... I'm all for electronic books. I wouldn't mind spending a nominal fee for the service of having select tittles converted to electronic form. Maybe I want the ability to electronically search a reference. Or maybe its great to have my favorite novel tucked away in my PDA for those unexpected times I need to kill a bit of time.
But the electronic version would not be a replacement for the paper. I would still want that copy on my bookshelf.
Printed books have lasted for several hundreds of years in readable condition.
I'm wondering how modern books will hold up. Different materials, and all that. It brings to mind concerns of papper acidity, etc, when comic book collectors talk about their trade.
The human species has been getting along without computers for thousands of years.
Damn strait. How long did we as a species survive without pidly things like vaccines? Machinery? Heck... even those damned wheels were just coddling the weak willed bastards too lazy to pick up and carry things.
I do not feel the open source community is in danger of falling completely to the evils of money (yes, obviously some will)... but as long as the code remains open, hackers are going to continue to tinker.
Good point. Let's take the idea further... can we GAIN from this exposure to Coporate culture?
Is it possible that Joe Corporate Coder, firmly entreched in the Evils of Money, can be converted? Perhapse their company wants them to take a look at Linux. Perhapse they look at it themselves to see what the fuss is. What they find is an environment enamoured with tinkering. It reminds them of the fun they had when they first started coding... why they made it a profession. They begin to tinker and hack... not because of some marketing drive but because they once again can enjoy coding. They're converted. And Open Source is richer for their contributions.
I'm not saying that the corporate culture is in danger of falling completely for the promise of Open Source (yes, obviously many will not)... but as long as the code remains open, some of those coders will want to tinker. Linux will continue to evolve.
A few people have already pointed out some of the oddities in the poll. Examples are questions 10 and 11 which ask what desktop environment the developer is using to which the answer is KDE. However, when asked what UI toolkit the developer is interested in (Question 9), GTK+ gets a higher count than Qt. Of course, what wasn't mentioned was that "Don't know, I'm not familiar with these toolkits" had a slightly higher lead than GTK+.
What is the most telling question, though, is number 22 - "Currently, the main platform I develop for is...". Windows far out-paces even Linux (which is the closest at only 25% compared to almost 60%). The answers are quickly explained by the fact that they come primarily from Windows developers.
OK. Let's not begin a flame-fest on Winows.
The point here is that many of the Windows developers come from a completely different environment than what spawned Linux. This shouldn't be shocking news. But I do think its being overlooked.
My take on this, which isn't even backed up by an unscientific poll, is that Windows developers are just now looking at Linux. All the market news, conventions, and even Borland's poll has gotten their attention. But they haven't actually looked too deeply into the subject. Linux is unfamiliar waters. Windows developers are not familiar with Linux, its environment, its tools... and most likely, its culture.
What's even more facinating is some of the other questions. Questions involving licensing, source code, development environments, choice of distribution. Many of the answers further show ignorance of the Linux (and Open Source, for that matter) environment... or a very stereotypical "Corporate" view.
There's been talk before on how this attitude would affect the Linux community. Here's an indication that it does, in fact, exist. And it's very likely to interject itself into the Linux world. Is Linux ready? Will Linux change? Or will Linux change the attitudes of developers?
You know... I thought trolling would be fun. I mean, you see soooo many people do it. Its got to have some apeal, right? Bah. As a whole, the day-of-trolls was boring. Back to ignoring them as usual. Oddly enough, its more satifying.:)
Yea. All that administration stuff is wholely dependant on Powerpoint. How silly of me.
That's why management just doesn't get "the Unix thing". There's no PowerPoint for Unix. How can they possibly do anything?
The subtle point here (below the radar of your average troll)... is that while they definately have uses, some "office tools" tend to cause a lot of bogus work. We find ourselves able to push more data around - but a lot of that data really has little to do with actual productivity.
Intel are now having to drop products after commiting to Linux support and almost forgetting that most people still use Windows...
Yea. If only Intel hadn't fallen for all this "Open Source" Linux hooey. Suddenly, a very paranoid and market-aware company went off the deep end. If they had only stayed in a Windows-only environment where a cruddy product isn't as important as good marketing, they'd still be making graphics chips today! Damn those Linux people and their crazy talk about performance!
Well, of course they're going to develop software for Windows. Windows users NEED their hands held. At the same time, they know its a waste of time to develop for Linux (or your Open Source OS of choice)... those guys will make their own stuff, and probably much better than what you can produce anyway.
I'm sitting here minding my own business, doing "admin things".
[bing!] Incoming email.
Hmmm. Lets see... I've got to attend a meeting about backup solutions. No problem. Attend meeting. Get roped into doing "evaluation" of PHB's favorite choice. Could be fun... though I don't know where this software package came from.
Do evaluation. Convert text notes to Word format (they'll freak if its not a.doc). Add spiffy formating. Looks nice. Email results.
[Bing!] Incoming email reply. Word document is nice. Well laid out and informative. Could I make a Powerpoint presentation out of it? Uhh... sure... I guess.
Fire up Powerpoint. Import text. Pick a dignified, somewhat technical, and way-less-tacky pre-formated style. Poke and prod text into a presentation. Yea. It's spiff. Email results.
Back to "admin stuff". Life is good.
[Bing!] Incoming email reply. Can I maybe remove some of the more technical stuff? How about some standard procedures on using the software? Here's a badly formated document from one of the other evaluators... can you include his work too?
[Bing!] Incoming email. What now?! Oh. Some manager is giving a presentation including the backup software. Can I change my presentation to his amazingly-tacky format so it looks seamless? Oh... and less technical detail. (grumble). Shuffle, shuffle, shuffle.... reformat... email results.
Consider killing email client.
While it may be "part of the job", I can't help but wonder what else I could be doing if tools like Powerpoint didn't exist.
If this is the same device I'm thinking of, I saw a blurb on TV where the local fire department is also using the device. They use it to locate victoms in burning buildings through walls and smoke. Its already been used successfully in one real-world situation where smoke had reduced visibility to almost nill. They have these devices deployed 1 to each unit.
This seems like a great idea to me. It allows the firefighters to quickly locate people and concentrate on getting them to safety. In addition, it cuts down on the risks these guys have to take to find people.
You've got a different idea of what STO means than he does. Since his definition actually encapsulates useful techniques which people might want to use, I find it more helpful than yours, which is essentially a straw man you're using to attack Microsoft.
OK. Maybe bringing up the spectre of Microsoft here isn't required. The concept of closed source insecurity applies to any company producing any closed product with security implications. Let's call it SomeOS (I'll next find out that there's an obscure OS called 'SomeOS' with a community of ravinous zealots).
The trouble with the writer's definition is that it includes "secrets" in the categrory of "Security Through Obscurity". Normally, advocates of eliminating STO are NOT, in fact, including the bannishment of secrets too. The author fails to recognize this and point out that he is attempting to further the definition to include other non-traditional aspects. In doing so, he confuses the entire STO argument. I'm sure that wasn't his intent.
Its like stating that "dirt" includes fruites and vegetables (they're grown in dirt, after all). Then claim that "dirt is a required part of a helthy diet". At the least, you're going to have some confused, if not negative, reactions.
I can see it now. Call RedHat. We've got a new jacket layout for them. Right at the top of the box it will read:
Can't WinNT compete?
"No. You're a moron." -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot.org
Forget all that enlightened approuch stuff. Forget function over splashy brochures. Oh no. We've finally awoken to what will REALLY get Linux out there into the masses. Not results... insults. And plenty of them. Can't we see about producing anti-Windows FUD while we're at it?
Or, in other words, the conspiracy is so good it doesn't even know of its own existence.
Sure... if you want to refer to marketing as a "conspiracy". And that's not too far from the concept. Marketing IS selling. Selling is getting people to do what you want them to do. It's just that marketdroids are so much less exciting than gunmen on grassy knolls.
Slashdot Mirror
It reminds me of an old Bloom County cartoon. Oliver Wendell Jones is sitting in front of the TV that is announcing that (paraphrased) "You are a major dork weenie if you don't have a Captain Death action figure!" His mother, horrified, goes to his father to complain who is also watching TV and being told "You are a major bolchevik weenie if you don't vote for Senator Biggums". (again, I've paraphrased - the cartoon is better).
How does that apply to Amazon? Go check out Microsoft. If you want to be widely successfull like Microsoft, you should be reading TechBook, Second Edition just like them! Buy it now (even if you never would have thought to by yourself)! Say... everyone else in my town is reading LameStory... what am I missing out on? Buy it now! Etc, etc...
I'm unaware of ANYONE claiming the PIII ID broadcasts itself.
The three points I brought up still stand: what is the function of the ID? The ID can not be removed by the user (unlike so ftware ID methods) and CAN be activated without user concent. And finally, the ID was to be shipped activated by default.
I would argue that the two issues have a much closer relationship. The fact that this identification technology was being announced in the same breath of ill-conceived applications is very telling. The whole idea behind the ID was to provide those very types of services! Ill-conceived indeed.
Software identification concepts have also been tried. Cookies. Some users are accepting of them. Many are not - features to disable cookies went from third-party add-ons to rolled in features on major browsers. Once again, a software based technology is easy to foil once it is identified. The hard-coded ID number is impossible to remove.
I do agree on one point. The fear over the PIII ID was overly hyped. The media seemed to harp on it for an overly extended period of time. I'm sure the general populous ended up fearing the PIII ID without any real clear idea of WHY they should.
That's not changing code, that's replacing hardware. Why should I have to go through the expense and effort to change out hardware to avoid invasion of my privacy?
Its easier than that. You can change the ID on your Ethernet card without removing it. But why should you HAVE to?
MAC addresses exist to facillitate various aspects of networking. You give up annonymity in return for working technology. Why does the PIII ID exist? What bennefit does it offer to users/consumers?
You do bring up an interesting point, however. Why should advertisers count on cookies to trace eyeballs? Why not snag the MAC address? Granted... this can be changed, but Joe User is unlikely to be aware of it or how to do it.
On the surface, this might appear to be the same kind of thing. But there's a pretty big difference on serveral points.
First, the intent of d.net software is not to indentify and track an individual. Logging IP addresses, and consequently being able to convince an ISP to identify that address to a customer account, is a byproduct of system logs. Its a common convention to the net. I'm accepting of this since, generally, such logs are used for administrative purposes and discarded after a period of time. A smart business will have a policy to ensure these logs are dropped as soon as they become obsolete to avoid legal hassles ("Sure, we'd like to provide you that information and get caught up in your litigation... but we have a long-standing policy to delete logs after X days."). Less-intelligent companies use them as gimmicks. In this case, everyone was able to act fast enough on a good enough reason to track down a theif. Its a byproduct, not the origional intent.
Secondly, it is a software mechanism and not non-removable firmware. If, today, you decide you're just too uncomfortable with the whole idea of being able to be tracked via your d.net client... you can remove it. Delete it. It's gone. The PIII ID code could not be removed. And, furthermore, it could be activated without the user's knowlege.
Finally, as stated by other people... d.net software is an "opt in" system. The PIII ID origionally shipped activated; you had to run specialized code to deactivate it. The implication is that it required prior knowlege as well as additional effort to NOT report your identity and invade your privacy. The d.net client requires prior knowledge and additional effort to activate - by default it will never report your existance.
The whole idea of invasion of privacy is NOT the ability to be identified. The distinction is whether you consent to that identification.
You'd have to modify the Furbies and remove their little coughing/cold feature. Can you imagine a several hundred Furby cluster all coughing? Chattering alone is bad enough.
Can you rack-mount Furbies?
How would you network them? Would they do what even the US Marines won't do - go into "battle" with a cable hanging out of their butts?
Why do I find a "Furby Cluster" amusing?
I definately see this as an issue for RedHat. It would be naive to think investors in RedHat understand the unique environment RedHat is in. Conventional business "wisdom" may cause some pressure on RedHat. However, I'm not so sure its a given that this would cause RedHat to act.
Let's say Pointy Haired Investor (PHI) is upset because they see Mandrake (or SomeDistro) taking RedHat's offering, adding some tools, and doing well in the marketplace. "Dammit! We need to buy these guys out and get their technology," screams the PHI. "Yea. They have some nice tools," say RedHat, "We'll copy them for free and wrap them into our distribution. And it won't cost the company a cent."
This might be a bit strange to the PHI. Open Source makes for a strange business. After all, anyone (ie: CheapBytes) can sell copies of RedHat's product without one cent going to RedHat. It may put some investors into shock.
But this environment creates great opportunities for someone able to navigate it. Hopefully, RedHat will convince investors that they have a firm grip on the tiller. It'd be a shame to have a RedHat mutany creating a company of Corporate raiders.
I tend to agree. The money seems to be in "enterprise" solutions. Perhapse the desktop is a means to this? Gain mindshare with the desktop. Leverage mindshare to generate larger scale business.
Maybe it wouldn't have been moderated down if it contained less insults and more facts. Your post, at least, was able to offer a hint of fact.
If a post is nothing but emotional outbursts and insults, it SHOULD be moderated down. It is nothing but noise.
This hasn't been my experience. I've read numerous amature stories, as well as some full scale books on my trusty well-abused Palm Pro. At first, I thought it was a great novelty to be reading books in this fashion. Then, with some shock once I realised it, I no longer conciously thought about reading on a PalmPilot. I was absorbed into the text as if I were holding a conventional paperback. The text size and quality didn't bother me at all. The backlight was a major plus since I tend to read in bed while my wife has gone to sleep and it negated the need for a nightstand light.
Of course, your tastes may differ.
Having said all that... I still like books. I definately would not seek out electronic copies of texts over their paper counterparts. However, I would pay a nominal fee for the service of converting my favorite texts into a handy electronic form.
I don't either. There's something about the tangability of books that is appealing. I like the feel of them. I like flipping the pages. I like putting them on my shelves and occasionally scanning over my favorites thinking "what do I feel like reading tonight?" And I like having them on display - and, consequently, its interesting to see what other people have on their shelves. You can't do this with electronic files.
Having said that... I'm all for electronic books. I wouldn't mind spending a nominal fee for the service of having select tittles converted to electronic form. Maybe I want the ability to electronically search a reference. Or maybe its great to have my favorite novel tucked away in my PDA for those unexpected times I need to kill a bit of time.
But the electronic version would not be a replacement for the paper. I would still want that copy on my bookshelf.
I'm wondering how modern books will hold up. Different materials, and all that. It brings to mind concerns of papper acidity, etc, when comic book collectors talk about their trade.
Damn strait. How long did we as a species survive without pidly things like vaccines? Machinery? Heck... even those damned wheels were just coddling the weak willed bastards too lazy to pick up and carry things.
Good point. Let's take the idea further... can we GAIN from this exposure to Coporate culture?
Is it possible that Joe Corporate Coder, firmly entreched in the Evils of Money, can be converted? Perhapse their company wants them to take a look at Linux. Perhapse they look at it themselves to see what the fuss is. What they find is an environment enamoured with tinkering. It reminds them of the fun they had when they first started coding... why they made it a profession. They begin to tinker and hack... not because of some marketing drive but because they once again can enjoy coding. They're converted. And Open Source is richer for their contributions.
I'm not saying that the corporate culture is in danger of falling completely for the promise of Open Source (yes, obviously many will not)... but as long as the code remains open, some of those coders will want to tinker. Linux will continue to evolve.
What is the most telling question, though, is number 22 - "Currently, the main platform I develop for is...". Windows far out-paces even Linux (which is the closest at only 25% compared to almost 60%). The answers are quickly explained by the fact that they come primarily from Windows developers.
OK. Let's not begin a flame-fest on Winows.
The point here is that many of the Windows developers come from a completely different environment than what spawned Linux. This shouldn't be shocking news. But I do think its being overlooked.
My take on this, which isn't even backed up by an unscientific poll, is that Windows developers are just now looking at Linux. All the market news, conventions, and even Borland's poll has gotten their attention. But they haven't actually looked too deeply into the subject. Linux is unfamiliar waters. Windows developers are not familiar with Linux, its environment, its tools... and most likely, its culture.
What's even more facinating is some of the other questions. Questions involving licensing, source code, development environments, choice of distribution. Many of the answers further show ignorance of the Linux (and Open Source, for that matter) environment... or a very stereotypical "Corporate" view.
There's been talk before on how this attitude would affect the Linux community. Here's an indication that it does, in fact, exist. And it's very likely to interject itself into the Linux world. Is Linux ready? Will Linux change? Or will Linux change the attitudes of developers?
You know... I thought trolling would be fun. I mean, you see soooo many people do it. Its got to have some apeal, right? Bah. As a whole, the day-of-trolls was boring. Back to ignoring them as usual. Oddly enough, its more satifying. :)
That's why management just doesn't get "the Unix thing". There's no PowerPoint for Unix. How can they possibly do anything?
The subtle point here (below the radar of your average troll)... is that while they definately have uses, some "office tools" tend to cause a lot of bogus work. We find ourselves able to push more data around - but a lot of that data really has little to do with actual productivity.
Yea! Especially if you run it on W2K and invite the internet as a whole to visit the site via some silly publicity stunt!
See? Anyone can troll! Fun for the whole family!
Yea. If only Intel hadn't fallen for all this "Open Source" Linux hooey. Suddenly, a very paranoid and market-aware company went off the deep end. If they had only stayed in a Windows-only environment where a cruddy product isn't as important as good marketing, they'd still be making graphics chips today! Damn those Linux people and their crazy talk about performance!
See? Anyone can troll. Fun for the whole family!
Yep... "It's good to be King!" Or a monopoly.
[bing!] Incoming email.
Hmmm. Lets see... I've got to attend a meeting about backup solutions. No problem. Attend meeting. Get roped into doing "evaluation" of PHB's favorite choice. Could be fun... though I don't know where this software package came from.
Do evaluation. Convert text notes to Word format (they'll freak if its not a .doc). Add spiffy formating. Looks nice. Email results.
[Bing!] Incoming email reply. Word document is nice. Well laid out and informative. Could I make a Powerpoint presentation out of it? Uhh... sure... I guess.
Fire up Powerpoint. Import text. Pick a dignified, somewhat technical, and way-less-tacky pre-formated style. Poke and prod text into a presentation. Yea. It's spiff. Email results.
Back to "admin stuff". Life is good.
[Bing!] Incoming email reply. Can I maybe remove some of the more technical stuff? How about some standard procedures on using the software? Here's a badly formated document from one of the other evaluators... can you include his work too?
More shuffling presentation. Damn slides. Move this. Kill that. Done. Email.
[Bing!] Incoming email. What now?! Oh. Some manager is giving a presentation including the backup software. Can I change my presentation to his amazingly-tacky format so it looks seamless? Oh... and less technical detail. (grumble). Shuffle, shuffle, shuffle.... reformat... email results.
Consider killing email client.
While it may be "part of the job", I can't help but wonder what else I could be doing if tools like Powerpoint didn't exist.
This seems like a great idea to me. It allows the firefighters to quickly locate people and concentrate on getting them to safety. In addition, it cuts down on the risks these guys have to take to find people.
OK. Maybe bringing up the spectre of Microsoft here isn't required. The concept of closed source insecurity applies to any company producing any closed product with security implications. Let's call it SomeOS (I'll next find out that there's an obscure OS called 'SomeOS' with a community of ravinous zealots).
The trouble with the writer's definition is that it includes "secrets" in the categrory of "Security Through Obscurity". Normally, advocates of eliminating STO are NOT, in fact, including the bannishment of secrets too. The author fails to recognize this and point out that he is attempting to further the definition to include other non-traditional aspects. In doing so, he confuses the entire STO argument. I'm sure that wasn't his intent.
Its like stating that "dirt" includes fruites and vegetables (they're grown in dirt, after all). Then claim that "dirt is a required part of a helthy diet". At the least, you're going to have some confused, if not negative, reactions.
Can't WinNT compete?
"No. You're a moron." -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot.org
Forget all that enlightened approuch stuff. Forget function over splashy brochures. Oh no. We've finally awoken to what will REALLY get Linux out there into the masses. Not results... insults. And plenty of them. Can't we see about producing anti-Windows FUD while we're at it?
Sure... if you want to refer to marketing as a "conspiracy". And that's not too far from the concept. Marketing IS selling. Selling is getting people to do what you want them to do. It's just that marketdroids are so much less exciting than gunmen on grassy knolls.