You're right - the two ideas aren't really competing. They'd be filling different roles in any potential mission.
I believe, though, that the tumbleweed is the sort of idea that NASA should be looking for with regards to a first mission- simple, sturdy, and focused.
I see the Entomopter, or other complex solutions being most useful when humans are there as well to do the debugging.
I liked thetumbleweed idea a lot more, though it's not so sexy. It seems like the odds of mechanical/electrical failures on a flyer are greater than the odds of our tumbleweed falling in a hole.
The government should invest in improving and securing Internet, ATM, and telephone infrastructure. Remember reading about the key extraction test on the ATM machine a month or so ago? What if terrorists performed such an attack?
The government needs to be working to ensure security at banks and other institutions whose failure would be catastropic.
I agree that MS's implementation is sometimes off. They're often slow/negligent.
My defense was of the model. Windows Update is MEANT to be the single point of access for patches that you talk about. As to finding Windows Update, it's been on the first layer of the start menu for some time. They've certainly tried to make it visible.
You're right, MS should have disabled opening executable attachments long ago, instead of waiting for XP. For a long time they've had the option of disabling opening - I don't know why it hasn't been default.
With all respect, these benchmarks wouldn't be for you - they'd be for average consumers who have even less information than you do.
As to representative tasks, I suggest the following:
1. Combined frame rates for the current top 5 games. This would have to be indexed so that over time, scores remained representative of relative performance increases.
2. Reboot time. Time to load and recalc a large Word or Excel document.
3. Performance on a tedious mathematical task with a large data base and no good shortcuts.
There's plenty of good benchmarks out there already. The ones above are stupid. But something is better than nothing.
These numbers don't need to be perfect. They just need to be standard, and at least an attempt to be representative of tasks that the average consumer cares about.
The fact that it's difficult to assess performance (and the fact that computer resellers are generally incompent) is the strongest argument for standardized benchmarking.
Consumers need a body that can give them a number for how quickly a computer will perform a certain kind of task. I know its not going to be terribly precise (or accurate for a specific task), but its going to be better than the current knowledge a consumer has (which is pretty much "How many of MegaHurts's does it have?")
That said, I don't think such a standard will be set, for the reasons in the original post.
Exactly. There's way too much information to evaluate.
The benchmarks would need to be adminstered on actual for-sale machines, randomly and with large samples, by the standards body. The OEM's would then have incentive to optimize their machines (and make sure they're stable).
Part of the Playstation 2's bus is 2560 bits wide. Must be one dang fast machine...
The computer industry really needs some new standardized, best-buy friendly means of identifying real processing speed - not just for the processor but for the entire system (as this is what matters to actual people). And it needs to be something that Sun can't fudge the results of.
Of course, nobody actually wants this. It's what Scott Adams refers to as a confusopoly. They can all stay in business by making sure nobody understands how fast their products are.
Would you prefer that MS made auto-forward impossible, because it could be used to forward a virus? Would you like them to make features more difficult to use? Would you like it to automatically switch off auto-forward if you don't read the mail for a month?
How would you improve on the way MS issues patches? What about Windows Update do you not like? What would you change, and why do you think it would help the average user? Does patching need to be made more difficult (like autoreply does)?
Our office blocks.scr attachments at the server, because we're not completely incompetent. There's no reason to send a.scr or a.vbs or anything like unto it - whatever you have to say could be said in a text file.
It strikes me as extremely sad that a virus like this can still work. How many times does it take?
People are ashamed of using VB, but it's really not that evil.
I realized this a while back while working on a standard data app. They wanted a look at what the screens would be like so I drew them up in VB (because drawing screens is easy in VB), with the intention of doing it for real in VC++.
Then all the sudden the prototype was done, and it worked, so I stopped. No complaints.
It might not be the language to use when you want to be proud of something your hands have made - but it works good for removing things from your desk.
As has been pointed out, QuickTime is pretty much just a different shell on codecs made by someone else.
Where Apple really innovated is in how helpful their website is. I had thought that I just wanted the free version - they let me know I was wrong to think that way.
Real deserves some credit here too, but they give up too quickly. Only Apple takes the high road, giving me a chance to upgrade every time I log in. It's like Real just doesn't care about me once I've made the wrong choice.
It's probably worth creating your own Certificate Authority if you're going to deploy this.
Our company was slow to adopt security until we did this. Verisign is great, but using an outside certificate provider makes managing certificates a huge heartache.
In your case, you probably wouldn't need to add the new root certificate to all machines, but it's a fairly trivial matter to do so if needed.
What we did is write a quick executable which included a serialized copy of the certificate. We then put this executable in user's login scripts. Note that however you do this, the user will need to click Yes to a system dialog box - a fairly simple matter but they'll need some warning.
I agree, there are more differences than I pointed out.
Perhaps a better way of saying it:
I think the record industry is contributing to the problem by not having a legitimate way for me to get music online. That is to say that the current best solution for getting music online is the illegal one.
Perhaps providing a better alternative is the best way around their problem (instead of trying to remove the ones they justifiedly don't like).
But I'm also doing something right. I think a lot of readers here use file swapping to illegally copy music. My post isn't intended to promote this behavior.
Instead, I'm trying to point out the general hypocrisy. We claim that we're against copy protection because it's infringing on our rights. At the same time, we're trampling the rights of artists by copying songs willy-nilly.
I think vendors should be able to ship whatever they want pre-installed with the machines - but they need to include all the components on CD (including IE, I'd say).
They also should have some sort of browser pre-installed, I'd think - one that uninstalls cleanly I'd hope. They should have another package where they install everything.
MS seems way to keen on forcing installs. I think IE is ready to stand on its own legs.
Why do people rent videos, instead of copying them from a friend who rented it?
Because renting a video is easy and cheap.
If there was a service that let me download music legitimately, I would use it.
It would need to be easy, and the catalogue would need to be extensive. I'd need to get a better file than an MP3 - actually, I should be getting better quality than current CDs. And it would need to be cheap. There's lots of songs I'd only pay $.25 cents for.
I'd just like everyone here to know that I'm to blame for all this.
I copy files like crazy on Kazaa. I burn them on CD's. I seldom buy music anymore, because I can get it free.
A big sorry to all those of you who will be able to listen to less and less music on your computers/in your car. A big sorry to all those who use Kazaa for only legitimate purposes (hi Dan!)
People here aren't (or shouldn't be) suggesting that "the industry" doesn't have the right to incorporate whatever sort of technology they want on these things. Heck, they've already made many CD's unusable by watermarking them with the voices of "N'Sync".
What this article is about is "Where's a company that recognizes our rights?"
Slashdot Mirror
You're right - the two ideas aren't really competing. They'd be filling different roles in any potential mission.
I believe, though, that the tumbleweed is the sort of idea that NASA should be looking for with regards to a first mission- simple, sturdy, and focused.
I see the Entomopter, or other complex solutions being most useful when humans are there as well to do the debugging.
It is amazing the solutions nature comes up with to problems.
Imagine how dangerous the world would be if nature figured out projectiles. Or wheels. Or fission. That would be one mean shark.
I guess nature did come up with those things - it just used humans as an intermediary.
I liked thetumbleweed idea a lot more, though it's not so sexy. It seems like the odds of mechanical/electrical failures on a flyer are greater than the odds of our tumbleweed falling in a hole.
The government should invest in improving and securing Internet, ATM, and telephone infrastructure. Remember reading about the key extraction test on the ATM machine a month or so ago? What if terrorists performed such an attack?
The government needs to be working to ensure security at banks and other institutions whose failure would be catastropic.
And don't make cloning illegal.
I agree that MS's implementation is sometimes off. They're often slow/negligent.
My defense was of the model. Windows Update is MEANT to be the single point of access for patches that you talk about. As to finding Windows Update, it's been on the first layer of the start menu for some time. They've certainly tried to make it visible.
You're right, MS should have disabled opening executable attachments long ago, instead of waiting for XP. For a long time they've had the option of disabling opening - I don't know why it hasn't been default.
With all respect, these benchmarks wouldn't be for you - they'd be for average consumers who have even less information than you do.
As to representative tasks, I suggest the following:
1. Combined frame rates for the current top 5 games. This would have to be indexed so that over time, scores remained representative of relative performance increases.
2. Reboot time. Time to load and recalc a large Word or Excel document.
3. Performance on a tedious mathematical task with a large data base and no good shortcuts.
There's plenty of good benchmarks out there already. The ones above are stupid. But something is better than nothing.
These numbers don't need to be perfect. They just need to be standard, and at least an attempt to be representative of tasks that the average consumer cares about.
The fact that it's difficult to assess performance (and the fact that computer resellers are generally incompent) is the strongest argument for standardized benchmarking.
Consumers need a body that can give them a number for how quickly a computer will perform a certain kind of task. I know its not going to be terribly precise (or accurate for a specific task), but its going to be better than the current knowledge a consumer has (which is pretty much "How many of MegaHurts's does it have?")
That said, I don't think such a standard will be set, for the reasons in the original post.
Exactly. There's way too much information to evaluate.
The benchmarks would need to be adminstered on actual for-sale machines, randomly and with large samples, by the standards body. The OEM's would then have incentive to optimize their machines (and make sure they're stable).
You're right of course.
But surely we could agree on some standard - a set of benchmarks evaluating the machine's performance at representative tasks.
And you're right, the information is out there already - but because there's no friendly standards body the information seldom makes it to consumers.
If suppliers or OEMs wanted to they could provide more information... And they'd stick with the standard until they find out they didn't win.
Case in point: Sun is pulling out of TPC-C (all hands to battle stations!)
You may want to find out about the latest PVR developments here.
Dang SlashDot, telling people where links go. Ruins all the fun.
Part of the Playstation 2's bus is 2560 bits wide. Must be one dang fast machine...
The computer industry really needs some new standardized, best-buy friendly means of identifying real processing speed - not just for the processor but for the entire system (as this is what matters to actual people). And it needs to be something that Sun can't fudge the results of.
Of course, nobody actually wants this. It's what Scott Adams refers to as a confusopoly. They can all stay in business by making sure nobody understands how fast their products are.
Would you prefer that MS made auto-forward impossible, because it could be used to forward a virus? Would you like them to make features more difficult to use? Would you like it to automatically switch off auto-forward if you don't read the mail for a month?
How would you improve on the way MS issues patches? What about Windows Update do you not like? What would you change, and why do you think it would help the average user? Does patching need to be made more difficult (like autoreply does)?
Our office blocks .scr attachments at the server, because we're not completely incompetent. There's no reason to send a .scr or a .vbs or anything like unto it - whatever you have to say could be said in a text file.
It strikes me as extremely sad that a virus like this can still work. How many times does it take?
What can we do to save the unknowing?
People are ashamed of using VB, but it's really not that evil.
I realized this a while back while working on a standard data app. They wanted a look at what the screens would be like so I drew them up in VB (because drawing screens is easy in VB), with the intention of doing it for real in VC++.
Then all the sudden the prototype was done, and it worked, so I stopped. No complaints.
It might not be the language to use when you want to be proud of something your hands have made - but it works good for removing things from your desk.
As has been pointed out, QuickTime is pretty much just a different shell on codecs made by someone else.
Where Apple really innovated is in how helpful their website is. I had thought that I just wanted the free version - they let me know I was wrong to think that way.
Real deserves some credit here too, but they give up too quickly. Only Apple takes the high road, giving me a chance to upgrade every time I log in. It's like Real just doesn't care about me once I've made the wrong choice.
It's probably worth creating your own Certificate Authority if you're going to deploy this.
Our company was slow to adopt security until we did this. Verisign is great, but using an outside certificate provider makes managing certificates a huge heartache.
In your case, you probably wouldn't need to add the new root certificate to all machines, but it's a fairly trivial matter to do so if needed.
What we did is write a quick executable which included a serialized copy of the certificate. We then put this executable in user's login scripts. Note that however you do this, the user will need to click Yes to a system dialog box - a fairly simple matter but they'll need some warning.
I agree, there are more differences than I pointed out.
Perhaps a better way of saying it:
I think the record industry is contributing to the problem by not having a legitimate way for me to get music online. That is to say that the current best solution for getting music online is the illegal one.
Perhaps providing a better alternative is the best way around their problem (instead of trying to remove the ones they justifiedly don't like).
You're right, I am doing something wrong.
But I'm also doing something right. I think a lot of readers here use file swapping to illegally copy music. My post isn't intended to promote this behavior.
Instead, I'm trying to point out the general hypocrisy. We claim that we're against copy protection because it's infringing on our rights. At the same time, we're trampling the rights of artists by copying songs willy-nilly.
I think vendors should be able to ship whatever they want pre-installed with the machines - but they need to include all the components on CD (including IE, I'd say).
They also should have some sort of browser pre-installed, I'd think - one that uninstalls cleanly I'd hope. They should have another package where they install everything.
MS seems way to keen on forcing installs. I think IE is ready to stand on its own legs.
Large object documentation
Or you can use bytea or TEXT like I do.
-Dave
I find it entertaining that my post here was marked as flamebait.
What I'm hoping for is certainly not flame. I agree that these copy protection methods are wrong.
But we can't put all the blame on the RIAA. Some of the blame has to go to those who copy files illegally, like myself.
PS, I've got karma to burn - I think this is worth saying.
Why do people rent videos, instead of copying them from a friend who rented it?
Because renting a video is easy and cheap.
If there was a service that let me download music legitimately, I would use it.
It would need to be easy, and the catalogue would need to be extensive. I'd need to get a better file than an MP3 - actually, I should be getting better quality than current CDs. And it would need to be cheap. There's lots of songs I'd only pay $.25 cents for.
$0.25 > $0.00
$0.25 * 100,000,000 > $0.00
Be nice if they implemented a similar system on PC games. Renting computer games for $0.00 would be way better than free music.
I'd just like everyone here to know that I'm to blame for all this.
I copy files like crazy on Kazaa. I burn them on CD's. I seldom buy music anymore, because I can get it free.
A big sorry to all those of you who will be able to listen to less and less music on your computers/in your car. A big sorry to all those who use Kazaa for only legitimate purposes (hi Dan!)
People here aren't (or shouldn't be) suggesting that "the industry" doesn't have the right to incorporate whatever sort of technology they want on these things. Heck, they've already made many CD's unusable by watermarking them with the voices of "N'Sync".
What this article is about is "Where's a company that recognizes our rights?"