The idea behind setting up a game and giving it rules to create an artificial constraint that everyone agrees to work within. The important part is that agreement. Sure, you can technologically bend and break the rules, but that doesn't make it right. The idea is to level the field somewhat and then make it a battle of skill and wits WITHIN the constraints of the game.
The big problem with cheating is identification. If you want to go out and duel against other bot builders then it's a fair competition. Other people are out there trying to move and react as quickly as they can but within the rules. If you present yourself as one of those people (the "nearly undetectable" comment) then you should play within those rules.
So, I'm glad that you get a huge power kick out of being able to dupe people trying to play within the bounds, but you've completely missed the point. Note: The Matrix is a horrible example to justify your actions. The Matrix is about revolution and fighting tyranny, not getting the highest number of frags.
Ahh, the classic example of DWI (Driving While Ignorant). The good thing is that you acknowledge your ignorance and are willing to work to decrease it.
First off, don't wait for vendor information, go to CERT, go to BugTraq, etc. Second, try to be proactive instead of reactive. There used to be a tool called Satan (Security Analysis Tool for Networks, or something like that) that can do monitoring of your network for common vulnerabilities. There should be some more tools like that. (Look at grc.com and other sites) Finally, invite someone to do a "hack test" of your network. They should be able to give you a decent idea of potential vulnerabilities. One important note: successfully passing a "hack test" is not a single time event, you need to retest every so often (thing quarterly, semi-annually, or at the very least annually).
Good luck, read stuff, and experiment. It's the best way to improve.
The DMCA was written under the guise of "Copyright protection". Copyright's are inherently consumer unfriendly. The purpose of copyright is to LIMIT the things that can be done by the consumer. While certain portions of copyright make sense to ensure commercial viability, others are strictly profit maximizing items. (Remember copyright is the club used to keep CD prices high.)
The original concept of the DMCA was to provide certain additional protections in order to ENCOURAGE the distribution of DIGITAL FORMATS for MEDIA. Using the DMCA to protect software is simply WRONG. Software has always been digital and doesn't suddenly need new and wonderful protections.
The rather spurious argument used to extend DMCA protection into software is that the software is being used to "enforce" provisions in the DMCA so any attempt to circumvent those enforcement mechanisms MUST be a violation of the DMCA. (Realizing of course that using the DMCA to prosecute DeCSS should be non-sensical then. The program allows the exercising of GRANTED RIGHTS, namely viewing, to a LEGAL PURCHASER of the DMCA protected content.)
I guess we're lucky enough to have a country full of lawyers who are more than happy to explain to us why logic isn't the proper thing to use when attempting to interpret the law.
Wow. This whole thing completely indemnifies Microsoft.
exception 1) If the problem is related to insecure design (Windows) 2) the Vendor has a diverse set of OS's to support (Windows 2000/XP Professional, Home, and Server Editions) 3) the Vendor is not skilled in security (Microsoft)
Sounds like they should love this document. And no, I haven't read the whole thing yet.
I'm not sure I agree with your statement. Ex-programmers certainly would seem to be great managers for current programmers, but are they really good managers? We give them high marks because they understand us and speak our language. They may even be a bit more reasonable about delivery dates and all.
The problem is, that's not really what makes a good manager. A good manager is someone who motivates you, listens to you, fights for you, and is occasionally willing to tell you to go get stuffed. Management isn't just making your work day more fun, it's hopefully about making the company a little bit better.
Probably the toughest thing a manager has to do is to kill ideas and projects. Especially ones that they find interesting. How many of us will willingly stop work on something that we are enjoying because it won't turn out how we originally planned?
So, yeah, it's great to have a boss who understands you and even understands Dilbert. But in the end, that boss also has to be willing to go out there and fight for the department and the company and make the tough decisions.
Microsoft has made a number of assertions during the original trial and is sure to attempt to make a bunch of other assertions now.
All the States have to do (yeah, merely) is to look at one or two of the assertions and attempt to disprove them with the source code. At that point they can call the credibility of a particular witness into doubt and impeach their entire testimony.
Remember, the biggest complaint most of us have had is that MS has been making unsubstantiated claims about the technical merits and difficulties of certain actions. This way the States could go out and prove they're unsubstantiated.
Boeing is using wearable computing and location tracking equipment to project wiring diagrams over physical parts of airplanes being assembled. This decreases installation errors and the giant pile of blue prints an installer would have to carry with them.
Imagine being able to have your car repair manual on one of these things while you're stuck in an odd position working under a car and don't have a free hand to turn to the page you need...
Yeah, it's underhanded, maybe even a bit immoral, the problem is, *IT'S NOT ILLEGAL*!!
Both sides are throwing money at this, unsurprisingly MS is throwing more. First off, it would be a violation of their fiduciary responsiblities if they didn't defend themselves as vigrorously as possible. Heck, they've already crossed the line of good taste/credibility in their PR and lobying campaigns in the past, why stop now?
If we really want to do something about activities like this we need to correct the current political system. Now, I'll just remain in the legions who complain about it and don't have a good solution (the problem is WAY beyond my meager geek abilities to grok). The one item of interest I have heard is that the current proposed reforms may have allowed people to donate MORE money instead of less.
We vote with our pocketbooks, Microsoft votes with its. They just happen to have a slightly bigger one. Finally, it's ironic that the concept of "free" speech is used to defend monetary contributions...
Copyright protects a produced product. IP protects an idea. As far as providing protection for an idea, I think we're headed in the wrong direction. The "One-Click Patent" is a prime example of this. The idea that it "protects" is "fast customer service", hardly an original idea.
A number of years ago there was a big movement in the US to "emulate" (pronounced copy) the Japanese industrial method. We were getting our butts trounced in the manufacturing world and decided on the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" solution. Imagine if a Japanese company had been able to patent an "employee motivational regime". Imagine if one of the first web startups had patented "stock option incentive plans". These are all simply ideas, not new inventions.
We need to get the USPTO to revisit the "non-obvious" part of the patent laws and look at the idea/motivation behind the idea being patented. If it's just a somewhat new way of doing an old idea then it doesn't deserve a patent. At best, Amazon should have gotten the normal first adopter's advantage for using "One-Click" and then have to improve it to keep up with the competition.
Hmmm, anyone want to work with me on the "One Mouse Hover and Wait 3 Seconds" shopping patent?
Legally it's quite a shrewd manuever to launch the offensive against a smaller target. BT can bully Prodigy and get a settlement, or, if they go to court, they won't be fighting the endless hoardes of lawyers that a company like AOL would throw at it.
Either way, if they win they establish a precedent that will simplify the process as they go after the bigger fish.
BTW - I hear a bunch of lawyers for Rambus are looking for a new "righteous IP cause" to sign on for...
The idea was to create a lot of small relatively stupid robots that could somehow self-coordinate (be it one brain bot or something). Imagine a bunch of ant-sized lifter bots coordinating and lifting and moving a heavy object. The heavier the object, the more "assistants" would get called in to do the task.
He did loft the banner and charge forward...
on
Modular Robots
·
· Score: 1
Well, I know we're wandering Off-Topic here, but...
(Also, I'm snatching that NERD sign from you and running head-long into the crossfire.)
The idea was that the shape of the robot was still unique (Light, Medium, Heavy, arms, legs, etc) but the robot contained "bays" for weapons and engine modules.
Anyways, back to the topic.
Modular robot design is actually a pretty good idea. First off, you could get the cost savings of scale/quantity, second you avoid the "puprose-built" robot problem.
I think a tool like this would be more useful in hazardous environments and unknown areas. Suppose we want our next robot explorer for Mars, sending a self-reconfigurable robot might be a better idea. We don't know exactly what we'd encounter and we can adjust for strange things. This would also be useful in contaminated areas where you don't want to get three special robots ruined or send someone in to modify the one already there.
...Now if we could just cram a CPU, battery, and connections into a swiss army knife and download the McGyver AI program...
The MPAA and the Writers Guild of America filed suit today against FlexPlay. They claim that FlexPlay's patent for "limited play" DVD's is invalid.
A statement from the MPAA was released: "Thanks to the heroic efforts of modern and historic screen writers there have already been a number of movies created that no person would be willing to watch more than once. Why Lorne Michaels and half the cast of SNL are single-handedly responsible for creating a wide array of 'bet you can watch it even once' films. FlexPlay's failure to site these obvious cases of 'prior art' will quite quickly and effectively render their patent unenforceable."
In other entertainment news, SNL, MTV, and Nickelodeon networks have teamed up to offer a new collection of "limited intelligence" movies to be released direct to DVD.
It's a means to an end, not the end itself
on
Heart of the Net
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The "NET" as we so like to call it is merely a tool and/or medium. It is the "message" that we need to concentrate on.
The corporate messages are thus:
1) The "NET" can be used to make money.
2) The "NET" can be used to control/influence thought.
The hacker message:
1) The "NET" is k3wl.
2) The "NET" is just one giant shooting ground with a lot of slow moving targets.
The programmer's message:
1) The "NET" is a communication medium. Be it person-to-person, computer-to-computer, or program-to-program.
So there's no current epicenter. That just means that the "NET" has grown large enough for more than one group to expand the boundaries at the same time. If anything, we should look at this comoditization as a positive step and we can concentrate on the things that go on top of the "NET" rather than the "NET" itself.
Hmmm, slightly evil thought. (Disclaimer: I'm not promoting this in reality.)
What if someone wrote the next Melissa/Nimda/Code Red to take all the information from a user's mailbox and create a bunch of random Passport accounts along with the various emails. The backlash would be quite interesting. Not to mention the garbage/clutter in the Passport DB and the cries for the ability to delete accounts...
Again, this is merely a mental exercise in what if's...
Having a certain tool/software on almost every box is convenient, but it's the standards that get you there.
ANSI C code compiles on almost every C compiler. If the compiler fails on it then it should be avoided. Granted the C++ world gets a little more complicated, but again, write to the standards.
The IE is everywhere so we'll write to it argument is even worse. IE is a *BROWSER*. It's designed to view/render certain file types. So, the idea should be to write to the file type. Then, any browser that properly implements the types will display the file as well.
It's the VBScript, IE-only, Flash-plugin writing people of the world who are destroying the original idea of HTML and the Web.
First, what is the shipping version of IE on each OS install CD? Win 95 has 2.0 on it, 98 I think has 3.0, 98 SE 4.0(?), NT 4.0: 3.0, 2000 5.0, XP 6.0. Now, all of these have at least one major security patch that needs to be installed to keep the system from being a giant virus-sucking black hole. So, you still end up connecting to a server and d/l'ing a new browser when you start your box for the first time. Granted it's slightly more user friendly then navigating a text FTP client.
So how to solve that? A couple of possibilities. 1) Have Microsoft and the OEM's include a CD containing the latest versions of IE, Netscape, Mozilla, and other browsers (some language to qualify). This CD gets refreshed every month and shipped out with the new computers at the time.
2) Don't ship anything and have everyone dial-up and d/l the browser of their choice. (Definitely inconvenient, but a level playing field.)
3) Have Microsoft and the OEM's INSTALL IE, Netscape, Mozilla, and other browsers (same qualifying language). Again, this would require relatively frequent refreshes to the install image.
Just because it's old news doesn't make the case irrelevant or not worth pursuing and resolving. Letting Microsoft off the hook will just encourage them to abuse and delay in the future.
You should do a little more research before hurling your rocks.
The agreement about IM's regarding the AOL-TW merger was related to "next generation IM capabilities". There was NOTHING in the agreement that said AOL-TW had to open up the current AIM protocol and/or servers.
The fact that Microsoft felt "perfectly justified" to engage in a reverse engineering process and attach themselves illegally to AOL's IM servers while "whining" for the open access is one of the most blatant cases of hypocricy to date. MS is only interested in opening something up when they're behind. If they're in the lead or have control then they implement proprietary extensions and try to hide them behind the shield of IP (example: 2000's use of Kerberos).
First, you're attempting to apply logic to the situation. Never a good idea when legal matters are involved. Second, you should probably read all the fine print when you sign up for a domain name. Hell, read the fine print on that toaster you bought.
There's lots of language in these things about the applicable laws, regulations, and the right to choose venues (where any trial might take place). If you recall the UCITA had some particularly odious language about venue choice and gave all the power to the vendors.
Finally, *THE INTERNET ISN'T A LOCATION*. While you may live in NY, where is the server that's hosting your site? Maybe it's in your basement, or a local ISP, but maybe it's somewhere else in the US or the World. Second, where are the resources used to find and access your site? The distributed nature of the Internet laughs at national borders (though nations are trying to erect borders).
The WIPO and ICANN are organizations created by international treaties. Mainly they exist to exert US laws on the rest of the world, so we shouldn't complain (if we're "greedy blood-sucking RIAA-spawn corporations") about the rules they impose on us.
So, remember when you sign up for that domain name, read the fine print.
Due to the current flurry of negative (and obviously biased) reports about XP's security of late, Microsoft PR 3.0 has created the following new security certification: BS1.
Achieving this rating marks a milestone in the development of the Windows eXPerience. The most recent press release lambasting the "evil, commie, terrorist bastards" who dare to release exploit code challenging the "Security is Job 3.0" corporate mantra in Microsoft has successfully pushed XP into the BS1 certification category.
BS1 is marked by the following:
* 3+ Metric tons of press releases denying any and all problems.
* 1GB+ downloadable "patches" and "enhancements" required for all new installations.
* 100,000th "grass roots" letter of support delivered to Congress
We would like to thank all of the people in Marketing and the good folks over at W&E for helping us reach this milestone in the Windows eXPerience.
First off, how would being "politically aware" have stopped the anti-trust suit? Please, cite some specific examples. In this case we had a re-elected president with a well known agenda. We also had a well established DoJ.
Microsoft's problem was that they refused to believe that they were answerable to the law. It has nothing to do with politics. ADDITIONALLY, they've been given numerous opportunities to settle the case (before, during *AND* after) and have refused each time to seriously approach the matter.
Next quote: "If they had made the slightest effort, they could have gotten some seriously damaging legislation passed against free software." Hmmm, read the UCITA? Microsoft is a major proponent of this steaming pile of dog by-product.
Software Patents. The items that the free software movement are "copying" aren't patented. Office and SMB have no patent protection. Neither does Windows. In all of these cases, the parties working in the free software arena are engaged in legal reverse-engineering. Microsoft has attempted to stop these groups through obfuscation, changing protocols and file formats, and even warping standards and trying to protect those changes by declaring them "Intellectual Property".
Also, the biggest additions of late are all second runs. IE came out long after Mosaic and Netscape. IIS was much later than NCSA HTTPD and Netscape (again). Media Player? Look at WinAmp and Real Player.
On the.NET side they *ARE* using patents. Look at some of the comments they've made about Mono and other.NET-compatible initiatives. While the overall protocols are published and "interoperable", the underlying pieces embedded into Windows are closely guarded secrets.
Finally, Microsoft is an abuser of the courts. They've taken every legal advantage given to them and thumbed their noses at the courts and their proceedings. They've deliberately delayed, lied, and produced false testimony. They lobbied Congress to get the DoJ's budget decreased. And this latest suit (albeit justified) is an attempt to stop a "sound-alike" product.
Personally, I think they should call the product WinLinux (if they can get approval from Linus). Since there's ample evidence of products starting with WinXxxxxx being allowed on the market it would make Microsoft's position much more difficult. The current name is far to close to Windows and since it is an OS there needs to be more effort to differentiate. If the product *WASN'T* an OS, then I think the name would be acceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't seem to get it do you?
The idea behind setting up a game and giving it rules to create an artificial constraint that everyone agrees to work within. The important part is that agreement. Sure, you can technologically bend and break the rules, but that doesn't make it right. The idea is to level the field somewhat and then make it a battle of skill and wits WITHIN the constraints of the game.
The big problem with cheating is identification. If you want to go out and duel against other bot builders then it's a fair competition. Other people are out there trying to move and react as quickly as they can but within the rules. If you present yourself as one of those people (the "nearly undetectable" comment) then you should play within those rules.
So, I'm glad that you get a huge power kick out of being able to dupe people trying to play within the bounds, but you've completely missed the point. Note: The Matrix is a horrible example to justify your actions. The Matrix is about revolution and fighting tyranny, not getting the highest number of frags.
Ahh, the classic example of DWI (Driving While Ignorant). The good thing is that you acknowledge your ignorance and are willing to work to decrease it.
First off, don't wait for vendor information, go to CERT, go to BugTraq, etc. Second, try to be proactive instead of reactive. There used to be a tool called Satan (Security Analysis Tool for Networks, or something like that) that can do monitoring of your network for common vulnerabilities. There should be some more tools like that. (Look at grc.com and other sites) Finally, invite someone to do a "hack test" of your network. They should be able to give you a decent idea of potential vulnerabilities. One important note: successfully passing a "hack test" is not a single time event, you need to retest every so often (thing quarterly, semi-annually, or at the very least annually).
Good luck, read stuff, and experiment. It's the best way to improve.
The DMCA was written under the guise of "Copyright protection". Copyright's are inherently consumer unfriendly. The purpose of copyright is to LIMIT the things that can be done by the consumer. While certain portions of copyright make sense to ensure commercial viability, others are strictly profit maximizing items. (Remember copyright is the club used to keep CD prices high.)
The original concept of the DMCA was to provide certain additional protections in order to ENCOURAGE the distribution of DIGITAL FORMATS for MEDIA. Using the DMCA to protect software is simply WRONG. Software has always been digital and doesn't suddenly need new and wonderful protections.
The rather spurious argument used to extend DMCA protection into software is that the software is being used to "enforce" provisions in the DMCA so any attempt to circumvent those enforcement mechanisms MUST be a violation of the DMCA. (Realizing of course that using the DMCA to prosecute DeCSS should be non-sensical then. The program allows the exercising of GRANTED RIGHTS, namely viewing, to a LEGAL PURCHASER of the DMCA protected content.)
I guess we're lucky enough to have a country full of lawyers who are more than happy to explain to us why logic isn't the proper thing to use when attempting to interpret the law.
Wow. This whole thing completely indemnifies Microsoft.
exception 1) If the problem is related to insecure design (Windows)
2) the Vendor has a diverse set of OS's to support (Windows 2000/XP Professional, Home, and Server Editions)
3) the Vendor is not skilled in security (Microsoft)
Sounds like they should love this document. And no, I haven't read the whole thing yet.
I'm not sure I agree with your statement. Ex-programmers certainly would seem to be great managers for current programmers, but are they really good managers? We give them high marks because they understand us and speak our language. They may even be a bit more reasonable about delivery dates and all.
The problem is, that's not really what makes a good manager. A good manager is someone who motivates you, listens to you, fights for you, and is occasionally willing to tell you to go get stuffed. Management isn't just making your work day more fun, it's hopefully about making the company a little bit better.
Probably the toughest thing a manager has to do is to kill ideas and projects. Especially ones that they find interesting. How many of us will willingly stop work on something that we are enjoying because it won't turn out how we originally planned?
So, yeah, it's great to have a boss who understands you and even understands Dilbert. But in the end, that boss also has to be willing to go out there and fight for the department and the company and make the tough decisions.
Microsoft has made a number of assertions during the original trial and is sure to attempt to make a bunch of other assertions now.
All the States have to do (yeah, merely) is to look at one or two of the assertions and attempt to disprove them with the source code. At that point they can call the credibility of a particular witness into doubt and impeach their entire testimony.
Remember, the biggest complaint most of us have had is that MS has been making unsubstantiated claims about the technical merits and difficulties of certain actions. This way the States could go out and prove they're unsubstantiated.
Check out some stuff about "Augmented Reality".
Boeing is using wearable computing and location tracking equipment to project wiring diagrams over physical parts of airplanes being assembled. This decreases installation errors and the giant pile of blue prints an installer would have to carry with them.
Imagine being able to have your car repair manual on one of these things while you're stuck in an odd position working under a car and don't have a free hand to turn to the page you need...
Amazing! Astounding! Unbelievable even!
Yeah, it's underhanded, maybe even a bit immoral, the problem is, *IT'S NOT ILLEGAL*!!
Both sides are throwing money at this, unsurprisingly MS is throwing more. First off, it would be a violation of their fiduciary responsiblities if they didn't defend themselves as vigrorously as possible. Heck, they've already crossed the line of good taste/credibility in their PR and lobying campaigns in the past, why stop now?
If we really want to do something about activities like this we need to correct the current political system. Now, I'll just remain in the legions who complain about it and don't have a good solution (the problem is WAY beyond my meager geek abilities to grok). The one item of interest I have heard is that the current proposed reforms may have allowed people to donate MORE money instead of less.
We vote with our pocketbooks, Microsoft votes with its. They just happen to have a slightly bigger one. Finally, it's ironic that the concept of "free" speech is used to defend monetary contributions...
>>Or optic nerve regrowth. Or what ever works. Seriously, I just want some damn depth perception! :)
I think you really need to look elsewhere to perceive either real or imagined depth.
The Immersion lawyers were quoted as saying:
"We're gonna grab them and shake them until they start coughing up the money."
Copyright and IP are radically different things.
Copyright protects a produced product. IP protects an idea. As far as providing protection for an idea, I think we're headed in the wrong direction. The "One-Click Patent" is a prime example of this. The idea that it "protects" is "fast customer service", hardly an original idea.
A number of years ago there was a big movement in the US to "emulate" (pronounced copy) the Japanese industrial method. We were getting our butts trounced in the manufacturing world and decided on the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" solution. Imagine if a Japanese company had been able to patent an "employee motivational regime". Imagine if one of the first web startups had patented "stock option incentive plans". These are all simply ideas, not new inventions.
We need to get the USPTO to revisit the "non-obvious" part of the patent laws and look at the idea/motivation behind the idea being patented. If it's just a somewhat new way of doing an old idea then it doesn't deserve a patent. At best, Amazon should have gotten the normal first adopter's advantage for using "One-Click" and then have to improve it to keep up with the competition.
Hmmm, anyone want to work with me on the "One Mouse Hover and Wait 3 Seconds" shopping patent?
Legally it's quite a shrewd manuever to launch the offensive against a smaller target. BT can bully Prodigy and get a settlement, or, if they go to court, they won't be fighting the endless hoardes of lawyers that a company like AOL would throw at it.
Either way, if they win they establish a precedent that will simplify the process as they go after the bigger fish.
BTW - I hear a bunch of lawyers for Rambus are looking for a new "righteous IP cause" to sign on for...
Cooperative robots were studied earlier.
The idea was to create a lot of small relatively stupid robots that could somehow self-coordinate (be it one brain bot or something). Imagine a bunch of ant-sized lifter bots coordinating and lifting and moving a heavy object. The heavier the object, the more "assistants" would get called in to do the task.
Well, I know we're wandering Off-Topic here, but...
(Also, I'm snatching that NERD sign from you and running head-long into the crossfire.)
The idea was that the shape of the robot was still unique (Light, Medium, Heavy, arms, legs, etc) but the robot contained "bays" for weapons and engine modules.
Anyways, back to the topic.
Modular robot design is actually a pretty good idea. First off, you could get the cost savings of scale/quantity, second you avoid the "puprose-built" robot problem.
I think a tool like this would be more useful in hazardous environments and unknown areas. Suppose we want our next robot explorer for Mars, sending a self-reconfigurable robot might be a better idea. We don't know exactly what we'd encounter and we can adjust for strange things. This would also be useful in contaminated areas where you don't want to get three special robots ruined or send someone in to modify the one already there.
...Now if we could just cram a CPU, battery, and connections into a swiss army knife and download the McGyver AI program...
The MPAA and the Writers Guild of America filed suit today against FlexPlay. They claim that FlexPlay's patent for "limited play" DVD's is invalid.
A statement from the MPAA was released: "Thanks to the heroic efforts of modern and historic screen writers there have already been a number of movies created that no person would be willing to watch more than once. Why Lorne Michaels and half the cast of SNL are single-handedly responsible for creating a wide array of 'bet you can watch it even once' films. FlexPlay's failure to site these obvious cases of 'prior art' will quite quickly and effectively render their patent unenforceable."
In other entertainment news, SNL, MTV, and Nickelodeon networks have teamed up to offer a new collection of "limited intelligence" movies to be released direct to DVD.
The "NET" as we so like to call it is merely a tool and/or medium. It is the "message" that we need to concentrate on.
The corporate messages are thus:
1) The "NET" can be used to make money.
2) The "NET" can be used to control/influence thought.
The hacker message:
1) The "NET" is k3wl.
2) The "NET" is just one giant shooting ground with a lot of slow moving targets.
The programmer's message:
1) The "NET" is a communication medium. Be it person-to-person, computer-to-computer, or program-to-program.
So there's no current epicenter. That just means that the "NET" has grown large enough for more than one group to expand the boundaries at the same time. If anything, we should look at this comoditization as a positive step and we can concentrate on the things that go on top of the "NET" rather than the "NET" itself.
Hmmm, the AI Robotic bartending "pouring test" eh?
Hmmm, so then will giving someone the finger now mean that you want them to call you?
Imagine conversations with all of those expressive people who are always wave their hands:
"I WAS wond.....and thEN I THOught..."
Hmmm, slightly evil thought. (Disclaimer: I'm not promoting this in reality.)
What if someone wrote the next Melissa/Nimda/Code Red to take all the information from a user's mailbox and create a bunch of random Passport accounts along with the various emails. The backlash would be quite interesting. Not to mention the garbage/clutter in the Passport DB and the cries for the ability to delete accounts...
Again, this is merely a mental exercise in what if's...
Having a certain tool/software on almost every box is convenient, but it's the standards that get you there.
ANSI C code compiles on almost every C compiler. If the compiler fails on it then it should be avoided. Granted the C++ world gets a little more complicated, but again, write to the standards.
The IE is everywhere so we'll write to it argument is even worse. IE is a *BROWSER*. It's designed to view/render certain file types. So, the idea should be to write to the file type. Then, any browser that properly implements the types will display the file as well.
It's the VBScript, IE-only, Flash-plugin writing people of the world who are destroying the original idea of HTML and the Web.
Whew, I feel better now.
A couple of points on this one.
First, what is the shipping version of IE on each OS install CD? Win 95 has 2.0 on it, 98 I think has 3.0, 98 SE 4.0(?), NT 4.0: 3.0, 2000 5.0, XP 6.0. Now, all of these have at least one major security patch that needs to be installed to keep the system from being a giant virus-sucking black hole. So, you still end up connecting to a server and d/l'ing a new browser when you start your box for the first time. Granted it's slightly more user friendly then navigating a text FTP client.
So how to solve that? A couple of possibilities. 1) Have Microsoft and the OEM's include a CD containing the latest versions of IE, Netscape, Mozilla, and other browsers (some language to qualify). This CD gets refreshed every month and shipped out with the new computers at the time.
2) Don't ship anything and have everyone dial-up and d/l the browser of their choice. (Definitely inconvenient, but a level playing field.)
3) Have Microsoft and the OEM's INSTALL IE, Netscape, Mozilla, and other browsers (same qualifying language). Again, this would require relatively frequent refreshes to the install image.
Just because it's old news doesn't make the case irrelevant or not worth pursuing and resolving. Letting Microsoft off the hook will just encourage them to abuse and delay in the future.
You should do a little more research before hurling your rocks.
The agreement about IM's regarding the AOL-TW merger was related to "next generation IM capabilities". There was NOTHING in the agreement that said AOL-TW had to open up the current AIM protocol and/or servers.
The fact that Microsoft felt "perfectly justified" to engage in a reverse engineering process and attach themselves illegally to AOL's IM servers while "whining" for the open access is one of the most blatant cases of hypocricy to date. MS is only interested in opening something up when they're behind. If they're in the lead or have control then they implement proprietary extensions and try to hide them behind the shield of IP (example: 2000's use of Kerberos).
First, you're attempting to apply logic to the situation. Never a good idea when legal matters are involved. Second, you should probably read all the fine print when you sign up for a domain name. Hell, read the fine print on that toaster you bought.
There's lots of language in these things about the applicable laws, regulations, and the right to choose venues (where any trial might take place). If you recall the UCITA had some particularly odious language about venue choice and gave all the power to the vendors.
Finally, *THE INTERNET ISN'T A LOCATION*. While you may live in NY, where is the server that's hosting your site? Maybe it's in your basement, or a local ISP, but maybe it's somewhere else in the US or the World. Second, where are the resources used to find and access your site? The distributed nature of the Internet laughs at national borders (though nations are trying to erect borders).
The WIPO and ICANN are organizations created by international treaties. Mainly they exist to exert US laws on the rest of the world, so we shouldn't complain (if we're "greedy blood-sucking RIAA-spawn corporations") about the rules they impose on us.
So, remember when you sign up for that domain name, read the fine print.
For immediate release:
Due to the current flurry of negative (and obviously biased) reports about XP's security of late, Microsoft PR 3.0 has created the following new security certification: BS1.
Achieving this rating marks a milestone in the development of the Windows eXPerience. The most recent press release lambasting the "evil, commie, terrorist bastards" who dare to release exploit code challenging the "Security is Job 3.0" corporate mantra in Microsoft has successfully pushed XP into the BS1 certification category.
BS1 is marked by the following:
* 3+ Metric tons of press releases denying any and all problems.
* 1GB+ downloadable "patches" and "enhancements" required for all new installations.
* 100,000th "grass roots" letter of support delivered to Congress
We would like to thank all of the people in Marketing and the good folks over at W&E for helping us reach this milestone in the Windows eXPerience.
You're kidding right?
.NET side they *ARE* using patents. Look at some of the comments they've made about Mono and other .NET-compatible initiatives. While the overall protocols are published and "interoperable", the underlying pieces embedded into Windows are closely guarded secrets.
First off, how would being "politically aware" have stopped the anti-trust suit? Please, cite some specific examples. In this case we had a re-elected president with a well known agenda. We also had a well established DoJ.
Microsoft's problem was that they refused to believe that they were answerable to the law. It has nothing to do with politics. ADDITIONALLY, they've been given numerous opportunities to settle the case (before, during *AND* after) and have refused each time to seriously approach the matter.
Next quote: "If they had made the slightest effort, they could have gotten some seriously damaging legislation passed against free software." Hmmm, read the UCITA? Microsoft is a major proponent of this steaming pile of dog by-product.
Software Patents. The items that the free software movement are "copying" aren't patented. Office and SMB have no patent protection. Neither does Windows. In all of these cases, the parties working in the free software arena are engaged in legal reverse-engineering. Microsoft has attempted to stop these groups through obfuscation, changing protocols and file formats, and even warping standards and trying to protect those changes by declaring them "Intellectual Property".
Also, the biggest additions of late are all second runs. IE came out long after Mosaic and Netscape. IIS was much later than NCSA HTTPD and Netscape (again). Media Player? Look at WinAmp and Real Player.
On the
Finally, Microsoft is an abuser of the courts. They've taken every legal advantage given to them and thumbed their noses at the courts and their proceedings. They've deliberately delayed, lied, and produced false testimony. They lobbied Congress to get the DoJ's budget decreased. And this latest suit (albeit justified) is an attempt to stop a "sound-alike" product.
Personally, I think they should call the product WinLinux (if they can get approval from Linus). Since there's ample evidence of products starting with WinXxxxxx being allowed on the market it would make Microsoft's position much more difficult. The current name is far to close to Windows and since it is an OS there needs to be more effort to differentiate. If the product *WASN'T* an OS, then I think the name would be acceptable.