It's true that RFC 822 came out after he claims to have invented email. It obsoleted RFC 733, where you find To, Cc, Bcc, and in fact much of what was (better-) formalized in 822. 1977. If November 1977 is insufficiently early, then 733 obsoleted 724, which was released in May of that year (and is basically a first attempt).
He didn't "invent" email. He implemented something that a lot of people were doing. Crocker et al. invented the format used for messages, as described in the series of RFCs 724 - 733 - 822. See rfc-editor.org for details.
Actually, there are additional reasons that it won't work.
Consider the setup. You have some sort of video display. You have some sort of camera. The body language of your eyes is suddenly all wrong.
Suppose the camera is mounted at the left or right side of the display. You look frankly into the (displayed) eyes... and to the viewer on the other end, you're looking off to one side. You're very interested, watching their face. To them, you're looking off to one side.
The situation worsens with a top or bottom mount.
Supposing that you realize this, and play to it... now when you look directly into someone's eyes, you can only actually see their face in peripheral vision.
Put the camera into the middle of the display. Most women have *already* encountered men who can't move their eyes up quite high enough. Big loser there.
Now, add the whole silly idea of conference calling, where there are multiple people involved. Who is looking at who, exactly? Too strange. Here's a meeting environment that feels as though everyone were feeling weasely, looking anywhere but at you....
The breakthrough technology is to have a camera somehow sit behind the displayed eyes of the person that it is displaying to. I don't think we're even remotely close to there yet. Until then, though, the system is transmitting not signal, not noise, but the wrong signal.
Who's the leader of the gang
That's robbing you and me?
D-I-S
N-E-Y
and the H-O-U-S-E!
Disney's House
(of Representatives!)
Disney's House
(and Senate, too!)
Forever are they stuffing wallets full...
(full! full! full!)
They own the rights
(it must be wrong!)
for all eternity.
D-I-S
(spoken: There'll be new laws soon!)
N-E-Y
(spoken: Why? So they can rob you!)
and the Movie Industry!
Hmmm. That doesn't seem to be what CMP thinks. www.tpj.com has been updated, with an address to contact to ask about subscriptions, so I did. Here's the response:
Actually, TPJ is no longer being published by itself, however, it is now being
published as a quarterly supplement to Sys Admin. A 1-year subscription to SA,
which includes 12 monthly issues of SA and 4 quarterly issues of TPJ, is $39
($58 for Canada and $69 for Int'l). You can either go to
www.sysadminmag.com/sub or call 800.365.2210 to subscribe.
I've been hoping to renew my expired subscription since TPJ escaped from the clutches of Earthweb... does anyone know how? The samag's "subscribe" link is for Sys Admin (I wouldn't really mind having that, I suppose, but I *want* TPJ).
The designers of the scripting capability in MS Outlook are responsible for this, and the writers of this particular version of the ongoing Outlook security exploit are pointing out that somewhere along the line, someone was seriously ignorant (as in lacking knowledge of thirty years of networked security issues) and unwilling to learn.
Under what circumstances should sendmail have a feature allowing it to automatically forward messages to everyone in/etc/aliases?
Should every installation of procmail include, by default, a well-known filter that will delete files specified by the incoming email?
If it is valid at all to design in features that permit large-scale spamming without the consent of the user, or features that will modify files without the consent of the user, is it valid to turn these features on by default, so that the least competent users are likely to be the most badly affected? How is it possible to call the ability for random strangers to delete your files "ease of use" (with a straight face)?
On a slightly gruesome note, I only wish that viruses were really as deadly as, say, ebola or bubonic plague. In that case, they might contribute to evolution--the early death of the unforgivably stupid. But that may be too harsh, and there is a good chance that the fool who designed (or ordered to be designed) such trivially easy-to-abuse features... has them turned off, personally.
The fact of being a signatory really doesn't matter, in the current climate there. Sure, they have to enforce. Oops. Somehow other priorities have intervened.
But the idea that certain things can escape US law by skittering off to second and third world nations, where enforcement is less strict, is really a little naive. In most of these places--and Russia is certainly included--enforcement is always available, for a price. That price can be met, by the RIAA, either by buying some more US congressmen, and putting the pressure on "through channels," or by going to the source, and buying some Russians politicians (it's probably cheaper that way).
As Lawrence Lessig pointed out, the fact that the net is largely unregulated is not "the nature" of the net. Corporate interests are perfectly capable of purchasing the results that they want. And in this case, where there is a single point of failure (a single web site), it's an easy assault, and an easy solution.
In fact, it seems likely that RIAA more or less bought the Swiss database, earlier. Can they keep it up? Sure, why not? They'll just add another few dollars to each CD....
Hmmm. Interesting and well-considered comment, but some of the quotes, at least, are more than a bit skewed (well, quoting the Halloween document's criticism of open-source initiative is almost funny).
Specifically, in response to the quote that attempts to explain Brooks in simpler terms, there is an implicit flaw--while these projects might take one programmer 12 months, but would not be completed in one month if twelve programmers were assigned, it might be the case that two could finish in six months, or that three could finish in four. One programmer might not be the ideal number for the project. In fact, more programmers might even finish more quickly, depending upon how the project fits into other releases with which it must be coordinated.
The open source paradigm adds programmers where parallelism is possible. To break things down, it's design, code, test, fix... design isn't easily divisible (at least the large-scale ought to be done by one person; the module designs might be done by as many people as there are programmers, but there's some loss there for coordination, and adding more programmers than there are modules immediately invokes Brooks' Law, which is really about the fact that once all the slots are filled, extra manpower is overhead, not advantage). Depending on the design, modules might be coded by more than one person, and *certainly* testing and fixing can be parallelized efficiently.
The ability of open source to test massively is both one of its greatest time savers (more on the order of: open source code is typically higher quality, because it's been tested more thoroughly, including broader code and design reviews) and one of the things that leverages initiative, in direct contradiction of Halloween I. Win2K isn't likely to have IPv6; Linux does. There are a multitude of other examples; for any given computer-use problem, there is probably a standards-based, well-tested open source solution that is going to be more effective than a proprietary solution. IRC is going to spearhead the whole concept of live chat years before vendors implement their own solutions (which is not to claim that IRC is that much better; IRC 2, though, is likely to be--IRC is the one thrown away, but the proprietary folks haven't managed to learn from its mistakes).
Where open source tends to fall down is not in lack of innovation, but in a failure to achieve the same level of limited function and high glitz as proprietary solutions. In cooking terms, open source is nutritionally balanced, tasty, digestible, and healthy, but poorly presented; proprietary is fast food, with extreme good looks and little value as nutrition (and probably a somewhat chemical aftertaste as well).
Mind, Brooks is my *hero*, and I have an autographed copy; I think MMM is brilliant. But he doesn't argue that only one programmer should ever be assigned to a project, and I believe that there is less contradiction between the open source model and Brooks' Law than ESR argues in CatB. Where open source shines is in the testing and revision cycle (and in the ownership of the code by programmers, not by managers... if someone in charge of a module doesn't get anything useful from an extra programmer, she can ignore him; in a managed software development cycle, everyone has to justify their paychecks, possibly by reducing someone else's productivity noisily).
When I followed the story, the various people writing about it said that the entire site at Harvard had been destroyed--including the backups. So, if the new site is anything more than a name... how was it recovered?
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, this is kind of stupid, on his part.
It's true that RFC 822 came out after he claims to have invented email. It obsoleted RFC 733, where you find To, Cc, Bcc, and in fact much of what was (better-) formalized in 822. 1977. If November 1977 is insufficiently early, then 733 obsoleted 724, which was released in May of that year (and is basically a first attempt).
He didn't "invent" email. He implemented something that a lot of people were doing. Crocker et al. invented the format used for messages, as described in the series of RFCs 724 - 733 - 822. See rfc-editor.org for details.
Amy!
Actually, there are additional reasons that it won't work.
... and to the viewer on the other end, you're looking off to one side. You're very interested, watching their face. To them, you're looking off to one side.
... now when you look directly into someone's eyes, you can only actually see their face in peripheral vision.
....
Consider the setup. You have some sort of video display. You have some sort of camera. The body language of your eyes is suddenly all wrong.
Suppose the camera is mounted at the left or right side of the display. You look frankly into the (displayed) eyes
The situation worsens with a top or bottom mount.
Supposing that you realize this, and play to it
Put the camera into the middle of the display. Most women have *already* encountered men who can't move their eyes up quite high enough. Big loser there.
Now, add the whole silly idea of conference calling, where there are multiple people involved. Who is looking at who, exactly? Too strange. Here's a meeting environment that feels as though everyone were feeling weasely, looking anywhere but at you
The breakthrough technology is to have a camera somehow sit behind the displayed eyes of the person that it is displaying to. I don't think we're even remotely close to there yet. Until then, though, the system is transmitting not signal, not noise, but the wrong signal.
Amy!
That's robbing you and me?
D-I-S
N-E-Y
and the H-O-U-S-E!
Disney's House ...
(of Representatives!)
Disney's House
(and Senate, too!)
Forever are they stuffing wallets full
(full! full! full!)
They own the rights
(it must be wrong!)
for all eternity.
D-I-S
(spoken: There'll be new laws soon!)
N-E-Y
(spoken: Why? So they can rob you!)
and the Movie Industry!
Actually, TPJ is no longer being published by itself, however, it is now being published as a quarterly supplement to Sys Admin. A 1-year subscription to SA, which includes 12 monthly issues of SA and 4 quarterly issues of TPJ, is $39 ($58 for Canada and $69 for Int'l). You can either go to www.sysadminmag.com/sub or call 800.365.2210 to subscribe.
I've been hoping to renew my expired subscription since TPJ escaped from the clutches of Earthweb ... does anyone know how? The samag's "subscribe" link is for Sys Admin (I wouldn't really mind having that, I suppose, but I *want* TPJ).
The designers of the scripting capability in MS Outlook are responsible for this, and the writers of this particular version of the ongoing Outlook security exploit are pointing out that somewhere along the line, someone was seriously ignorant (as in lacking knowledge of thirty years of networked security issues) and unwilling to learn.
/etc/aliases?
... has them turned off, personally.
Under what circumstances should sendmail have a feature allowing it to automatically forward messages to everyone in
Should every installation of procmail include, by default, a well-known filter that will delete files specified by the incoming email?
If it is valid at all to design in features that permit large-scale spamming without the consent of the user, or features that will modify files without the consent of the user, is it valid to turn these features on by default, so that the least competent users are likely to be the most badly affected? How is it possible to call the ability for random strangers to delete your files "ease of use" (with a straight face)?
On a slightly gruesome note, I only wish that viruses were really as deadly as, say, ebola or bubonic plague. In that case, they might contribute to evolution--the early death of the unforgivably stupid. But that may be too harsh, and there is a good chance that the fool who designed (or ordered to be designed) such trivially easy-to-abuse features
Amy!
The fact of being a signatory really doesn't matter, in the current climate there. Sure, they have to enforce. Oops. Somehow other priorities have intervened.
....
But the idea that certain things can escape US law by skittering off to second and third world nations, where enforcement is less strict, is really a little naive. In most of these places--and Russia is certainly included--enforcement is always available, for a price. That price can be met, by the RIAA, either by buying some more US congressmen, and putting the pressure on "through channels," or by going to the source, and buying some Russians politicians (it's probably cheaper that way).
As Lawrence Lessig pointed out, the fact that the net is largely unregulated is not "the nature" of the net. Corporate interests are perfectly capable of purchasing the results that they want. And in this case, where there is a single point of failure (a single web site), it's an easy assault, and an easy solution.
In fact, it seems likely that RIAA more or less bought the Swiss database, earlier. Can they keep it up? Sure, why not? They'll just add another few dollars to each CD
Amy!
Hmmm. Interesting and well-considered comment, but some of the quotes, at least, are more than a bit skewed (well, quoting the Halloween document's criticism of open-source initiative is almost funny).
... design isn't easily divisible (at least the large-scale ought to be done by one person; the module designs might be done by as many people as there are programmers, but there's some loss there for coordination, and adding more programmers than there are modules immediately invokes Brooks' Law, which is really about the fact that once all the slots are filled, extra manpower is overhead, not advantage). Depending on the design, modules might be coded by more than one person, and *certainly* testing and fixing can be parallelized efficiently.
... if someone in charge of a module doesn't get anything useful from an extra programmer, she can ignore him; in a managed software development cycle, everyone has to justify their paychecks, possibly by reducing someone else's productivity noisily).
Specifically, in response to the quote that attempts to explain Brooks in simpler terms, there is an implicit flaw--while these projects might take one programmer 12 months, but would not be completed in one month if twelve programmers were assigned, it might be the case that two could finish in six months, or that three could finish in four. One programmer might not be the ideal number for the project. In fact, more programmers might even finish more quickly, depending upon how the project fits into other releases with which it must be coordinated.
The open source paradigm adds programmers where parallelism is possible. To break things down, it's design, code, test, fix
The ability of open source to test massively is both one of its greatest time savers (more on the order of: open source code is typically higher quality, because it's been tested more thoroughly, including broader code and design reviews) and one of the things that leverages initiative, in direct contradiction of Halloween I. Win2K isn't likely to have IPv6; Linux does. There are a multitude of other examples; for any given computer-use problem, there is probably a standards-based, well-tested open source solution that is going to be more effective than a proprietary solution. IRC is going to spearhead the whole concept of live chat years before vendors implement their own solutions (which is not to claim that IRC is that much better; IRC 2, though, is likely to be--IRC is the one thrown away, but the proprietary folks haven't managed to learn from its mistakes).
Where open source tends to fall down is not in lack of innovation, but in a failure to achieve the same level of limited function and high glitz as proprietary solutions. In cooking terms, open source is nutritionally balanced, tasty, digestible, and healthy, but poorly presented; proprietary is fast food, with extreme good looks and little value as nutrition (and probably a somewhat chemical aftertaste as well).
Mind, Brooks is my *hero*, and I have an autographed copy; I think MMM is brilliant. But he doesn't argue that only one programmer should ever be assigned to a project, and I believe that there is less contradiction between the open source model and Brooks' Law than ESR argues in CatB. Where open source shines is in the testing and revision cycle (and in the ownership of the code by programmers, not by managers
When I followed the story, the various people writing about it said that the entire site at Harvard had been destroyed--including the backups. So, if the new site is anything more than a name ... how was it recovered?