I won't believe it when I see it. I'll need to see it many times, by all of their business units, over a significant length of time before I believe it.
I've always dreamed of doing something like this. Starting over, giving everything up. And I'm right positive that I'm not the only one on Slashdot to have those dreams.
Is there a place on Earth where anyone can go and live to get out of the "rat race"? Modern society sucks in many ways and I'd be happy to try something else. I'd guess, though, that human nature is the real limiting factor. Greed, corruption, crime, profiteering - it'll follow you everywhere.
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then they send you a cake. Then you pay your ISP for 8 million downloads. Then you profit??? What are we doing again?
I wonder, how long till someone writes a Firefox plugin that alters Google search results to make clicks appear as if they are from Microsoft's search - that way users can use the better search engine and still cash in.
I don't think you can blame people for buying a product that they found out about through spamvertisement, if it's something they wanted. What are you supposed to do? Look at the message and say "Gee actually I was thinking about buying one of those, that one looks perfect, but since they spamvertised it to me, I refuse to buy it." Sounds a little childish and stubborn.
That depends on how you view spam. One way is that it is mind pollution. I try not to buy from companies that pollute excessively, and that would mean not buying products from companies that try and pollute my mind.
SPAM is not so much a problem because of what it is, unsolicited advertisement, but because it's being used wrong. You get spammed when you watch TV. When you listen to the radio. When you drive your car down the road. As you walk through the isles in the store. It's everywhere. You can't just say that you're going to boycott every product you see spamvertised.
Sure, assuming that TV and Radio advertisements are the gold standard. I think they are just as annoying as email spam and I avoid watching TV for the most part, and almost never listen to the radio because there is hardly any music on it anymore! There are better alternatives anyway, like renting a movie, watching shows on Joost which has very little advertising, or listening to music from my own collection.
Here's the thing... if tomorrow it was announced that for the next 5 months no one was supposed to buy from spammers, and they followed through with this, the spammers would go out of business.
Do you really think that's true? How much does it cost a spammer to stay in business? I belive it is very little - that's the economics of spam. Also, nailing spammers is like playing whack-a-mole: you get one and another pops up. So even if you did bankrupt many spammers in that 5 months, there would always be more to pick up where the others left off once people started responding to spams again.
But since you can't make that many people change your ways, all you accomplish with your own private boycott is to inconvenience yourself.
Possibly. However, don't underestimate the power of communication these days - it is easy for anyone to get in touch with thousands of people. Also keep in mind that not everyone's goal is to convince everyone else to do the same thing. I'm happy to do my part and if others who I tell share the same view then great. If not, it's still worth it to me to uphold my principles.
It's like organizing a boycott in your town against WalMart because they are selling a brand of toy that's a choking hazard.
I think that's a poor example. Can you imagine the bad press a store would get if they knowingly sold a toy that is a choking hazard? I think most stores are really responsible in that area.
I learned a valuable lesson just recently: that Slashdot news submissions really need to be taken with a grain of salt. It's easy to get caught up in the furor over some things being reported, like a recent story about someone's iPod being scanned or copied at US Customs. I just went on a vacation to the US and I almost didn't bring my iPod because of that story. Then I thought you know what, this is stupid. I'm going to test this out and see what happens. If they do take my iPod I'm going to be pissed and make a stink about it (after my vacation). So I went through US Customs and guess what happened? Nothing. The story I read was about something that happened to one person and I assumed it was something that happens to everyone nowadays but obviously this isn't true. It's easy to blow things out of proportion.
We're not "consumerist", we're just rich, and we can afford to consume more.
Our society is totally geared to consuming vast quantities of goods, most of which we don't even need. Disruptions in our consuming can cause economic disasters. Government and corporate policy ensures that this type of society continues (see any "don't buy day" ads on TV, ever?). Therefore, I think "Consumerist" is not that unfair of a brand even though it does sound gross.
Society today makes me think of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, where the higher needs in the hierarchy only come into focus when the lower needs are met.
The difference is that when you peel back the layers of society you revert to less civilized behaviour. For example, slavery has been abolished for quite some time now. Let's say a country is battered enough and in rough enough shape to stop functioning, could there be a time when slavery might come back? (Heaven forbid)
I say this because torture is back where not long ago it had been abolished.
Citizens solving things through guns and bloodshed has been gone for a long time, too. Is the US on the way to its citizens reverting to more violent ways to getting the government to do its bidding? I mean, they're running out of options.
Any other examples of behaviour reverting to be less civilized?
Gmail should go back to their old scheme, where you had to have a cell phone to receive your password... If you don't have a phone, you're probably not a good candidate for an advertiser-supported service anyway.
Since when does cell phone == phone? Tons of people don't have cell phones, and most of them are consumers of various goods just like people who do have cell phones. It's amazing how the 'net culture makes it easy to write off huge swaths of the population just because they don't have or want the latest gadgets.
I don't mean to be too contrary, but how-do-you-know that the proprietary code should be easier to have altered?
For a few reasons, but here is the main one:
A company could be "bullied" by the government to make certain changes to their code, such as adding a back door. An individual could be bullied as well. But with open source code you can't do that because there is no single owner to bully and there could be people all over the globe willing to run the project from their country, safe from some other government's demands.
The possibility that many eyes could look at open source code (carefully, not casually) does not mean that it happens.
In general, that's true. If we narrow this down to specific projects like Linux, OpenBSD, and OpenSSH, we can say that yes, these projects do receive a lot of very critical inspection. You can find relevant details on the latter two project's websites quite easily.
Someone injecting code into any piece of software would need to be very careful to ensure that...
Good list.
I won't say "it doesn't happen" -- an intentionally weak cryptosystem is one obvious possibility -- but it's a little interesting that nothing's turned up anywhere that we know of.
As far as the compiler goes, ab-so-lutely, be wary.
Let's not forget the CPU itself. It's interesting that Sun has put a couple of their chips under a community source license. I'd guess that it would be very difficult to verify whether a chip was fabricated based on a certain set of microcode, unaltered.
I don't know one way or another whether the NSA has other motivations. I do believe that if they wanted to insert a back door in open source products they would be forced to go to great lengths to do so given the scrutiny which security related code is subject to. Proprietary code should be easier to have altered with the centralized, non-forking code base, a single entity to pay off or threaten, non-public business dealings by nature.
What sort of systems is the COBOL code you're writing for? Is it mainly maintenance work or is there new development? Everything still on mainframes? Is anything new happening with the language?
It's been awhile since I wrote any COBOL (and I never wrote that much), but I still have a fondness for it.:)
For me, I think one of the worst parts would be the suffocating silence of a planet with nothing else on it but myself. That and loneliness itself would be hard to deal with. I'll bet the sky would be beautiful, though, at least for awhile.
One of the best parts would be the launch from Earth, plus finally getting to Mars, although I don't know how much I'd trust the landing to keep me in one piece.:)
This sucks, but I think the guy was being a bit naive personally. If he went to a small time local repair shop and got this treatment I'd be more surprised. When you're dealing with a system that is made to handle a high volume of requests you can't expect personally-tailored service - that would be much too expensive for a company to maintain.
Probably the issue tracking system and everything else down the line lacks the ability to account for personal requests: You send in a broken box, they send back a fixed box. I wouldn't even expect the same physical unit to come back, personally. I'm curious how purchased content is handled, though, in the case of a drive failure.
Anyway, I think the guy had an unrealistic expectation, but then again maybe I've just lowered my expectations of big companies too far. I'm left wondering how this made front page news on slashdot, too.
I guess I should have wasted "first post" on something obvious like "Sharks with frikin' laser beams attached to their heads"
Yet another suggestion: a Beowulf cluster of these things could operate continuously and really wreak some havoc. The cluster would be so big though... I'd have to tell you about the twinkie.
Microsoft seems to always put profits ahead of what the user really wants. That's one reason why open source is cutting into their business so much - it's all about what people want.
Also, if you look at Google, they've organically grown their offerings over time and have been pretty unobtrusive about how they make their money (text-based ads, very plain search page). They've grown a huge base of loyal customers and done a fairly good job of not alienating them.
Microsoft also needs to refocus on quality. With the Internet and the popularity of social networking people have tons of software and recommendations at their fingertips. As as result, Microsoft can't rely so much on bundling because alternatives are everywhere.
The bottom line is Microsoft has to make some big changes in how it conducts business and how it serves its customers.
Low level infra-red red is thought to stimulate the growth of cells of all types of tissue and encourage their repair.
What if you have cancer? Will it get worse or better? Can you focus it on your heart if you have heart problems? Or on your butt if you want to look like Jay-Lo? Ad nauseum...:)
If however the courts can show that you knew the risks and consequences to having your network opened, and you had the means to do it, yet did not, you are much more likely to be held accountable.
And if you're a computer professional, they'd probably slam you even harder if you didn't secure your network.
Slashdot Mirror
I won't believe it when I see it. I'll need to see it many times, by all of their business units, over a significant length of time before I believe it.
You can see a Windows version of the diagram here:
http://www.scotboyd.net/90percent/uploaded_images/IMG_0299-797021.JPG
That was my first thought as well. The word you're looking for is: misdirection.
I've always dreamed of doing something like this. Starting over, giving everything up. And I'm right positive that I'm not the only one on Slashdot to have those dreams.
Is there a place on Earth where anyone can go and live to get out of the "rat race"? Modern society sucks in many ways and I'd be happy to try something else. I'd guess, though, that human nature is the real limiting factor. Greed, corruption, crime, profiteering - it'll follow you everywhere.
First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then they send you a cake.
Then you pay your ISP for 8 million downloads.
Then you profit???
What are we doing again?
I wonder, how long till someone writes a Firefox plugin that alters Google search results to make clicks appear as if they are from Microsoft's search - that way users can use the better search engine and still cash in.
I searched for "why do people surf the internet?" and the second result was about ocean surfing, not Internet surfing. Google provided better results.
I don't think you can blame people for buying a product that they found out about through spamvertisement, if it's something they wanted. What are you supposed to do? Look at the message and say "Gee actually I was thinking about buying one of those, that one looks perfect, but since they spamvertised it to me, I refuse to buy it." Sounds a little childish and stubborn.
That depends on how you view spam. One way is that it is mind pollution. I try not to buy from companies that pollute excessively, and that would mean not buying products from companies that try and pollute my mind.
SPAM is not so much a problem because of what it is, unsolicited advertisement, but because it's being used wrong. You get spammed when you watch TV. When you listen to the radio. When you drive your car down the road. As you walk through the isles in the store. It's everywhere. You can't just say that you're going to boycott every product you see spamvertised.
Sure, assuming that TV and Radio advertisements are the gold standard. I think they are just as annoying as email spam and I avoid watching TV for the most part, and almost never listen to the radio because there is hardly any music on it anymore! There are better alternatives anyway, like renting a movie, watching shows on Joost which has very little advertising, or listening to music from my own collection.
Here's the thing... if tomorrow it was announced that for the next 5 months no one was supposed to buy from spammers, and they followed through with this, the spammers would go out of business.
Do you really think that's true? How much does it cost a spammer to stay in business? I belive it is very little - that's the economics of spam. Also, nailing spammers is like playing whack-a-mole: you get one and another pops up. So even if you did bankrupt many spammers in that 5 months, there would always be more to pick up where the others left off once people started responding to spams again.
But since you can't make that many people change your ways, all you accomplish with your own private boycott is to inconvenience yourself.
Possibly. However, don't underestimate the power of communication these days - it is easy for anyone to get in touch with thousands of people. Also keep in mind that not everyone's goal is to convince everyone else to do the same thing. I'm happy to do my part and if others who I tell share the same view then great. If not, it's still worth it to me to uphold my principles.
It's like organizing a boycott in your town against WalMart because they are selling a brand of toy that's a choking hazard.
I think that's a poor example. Can you imagine the bad press a store would get if they knowingly sold a toy that is a choking hazard? I think most stores are really responsible in that area.
This whole thing is about the right to not be offended.
:)
Whoa, since when is that a Right? I'm offended by things all the time - it's a fact of life. Actually, expecting to never be offended offends me!
But god forbid the truth should get in the way of a hyperactive slashdot submission - desperate for 500 comments of "1984", "slippery slope" and every other cliché under the sun.
I learned a valuable lesson just recently: that Slashdot news submissions really need to be taken with a grain of salt. It's easy to get caught up in the furor over some things being reported, like a recent story about someone's iPod being scanned or copied at US Customs. I just went on a vacation to the US and I almost didn't bring my iPod because of that story. Then I thought you know what, this is stupid. I'm going to test this out and see what happens. If they do take my iPod I'm going to be pissed and make a stink about it (after my vacation). So I went through US Customs and guess what happened? Nothing. The story I read was about something that happened to one person and I assumed it was something that happens to everyone nowadays but obviously this isn't true. It's easy to blow things out of proportion.
We're not "consumerist", we're just rich, and we can afford to consume more.
Our society is totally geared to consuming vast quantities of goods, most of which we don't even need. Disruptions in our consuming can cause economic disasters. Government and corporate policy ensures that this type of society continues (see any "don't buy day" ads on TV, ever?). Therefore, I think "Consumerist" is not that unfair of a brand even though it does sound gross.
Society today makes me think of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, where the higher needs in the hierarchy only come into focus when the lower needs are met.
The difference is that when you peel back the layers of society you revert to less civilized behaviour. For example, slavery has been abolished for quite some time now. Let's say a country is battered enough and in rough enough shape to stop functioning, could there be a time when slavery might come back? (Heaven forbid)
I say this because torture is back where not long ago it had been abolished.
Citizens solving things through guns and bloodshed has been gone for a long time, too. Is the US on the way to its citizens reverting to more violent ways to getting the government to do its bidding? I mean, they're running out of options.
Any other examples of behaviour reverting to be less civilized?
Gmail should go back to their old scheme, where you had to have a cell phone to receive your password... If you don't have a phone, you're probably not a good candidate for an advertiser-supported service anyway.
Since when does cell phone == phone? Tons of people don't have cell phones, and most of them are consumers of various goods just like people who do have cell phones. It's amazing how the 'net culture makes it easy to write off huge swaths of the population just because they don't have or want the latest gadgets.
I don't mean to be too contrary, but how-do-you-know that the proprietary code should be easier to have altered?
For a few reasons, but here is the main one:
A company could be "bullied" by the government to make certain changes to their code, such as adding a back door. An individual could be bullied as well. But with open source code you can't do that because there is no single owner to bully and there could be people all over the globe willing to run the project from their country, safe from some other government's demands.
The possibility that many eyes could look at open source code (carefully, not casually) does not mean that it happens.
In general, that's true. If we narrow this down to specific projects like Linux, OpenBSD, and OpenSSH, we can say that yes, these projects do receive a lot of very critical inspection. You can find relevant details on the latter two project's websites quite easily.
Someone injecting code into any piece of software would need to be very careful to ensure that...
Good list.
I won't say "it doesn't happen" -- an intentionally weak cryptosystem is one obvious possibility -- but it's a little interesting that nothing's turned up anywhere that we know of.
I'm sure there is a long list of people to thank for that.
Speaking of which, I think I'll start here:
http://www.openssh.org/donations.html
Cheers
As far as the compiler goes, ab-so-lutely, be wary.
Let's not forget the CPU itself. It's interesting that Sun has put a couple of their chips under a community source license. I'd guess that it would be very difficult to verify whether a chip was fabricated based on a certain set of microcode, unaltered.
I don't know one way or another whether the NSA has other motivations. I do believe that if they wanted to insert a back door in open source products they would be forced to go to great lengths to do so given the scrutiny which security related code is subject to. Proprietary code should be easier to have altered with the centralized, non-forking code base, a single entity to pay off or threaten, non-public business dealings by nature.
What sort of systems is the COBOL code you're writing for? Is it mainly maintenance work or is there new development? Everything still on mainframes? Is anything new happening with the language?
:)
It's been awhile since I wrote any COBOL (and I never wrote that much), but I still have a fondness for it.
For me, I think one of the worst parts would be the suffocating silence of a planet with nothing else on it but myself. That and loneliness itself would be hard to deal with. I'll bet the sky would be beautiful, though, at least for awhile.
One of the best parts would be the launch from Earth, plus finally getting to Mars, although I don't know how much I'd trust the landing to keep me in one piece.
Uh, aren't the next steps after us laughing at him:
Then Balmer fights us
Then Balmer wins
? If not, then explain why Ghandi's catchy quote doesn't apply in both directions.
(sorry, I'm playing devil's advocate here)
This sucks, but I think the guy was being a bit naive personally. If he went to a small time local repair shop and got this treatment I'd be more surprised. When you're dealing with a system that is made to handle a high volume of requests you can't expect personally-tailored service - that would be much too expensive for a company to maintain.
Probably the issue tracking system and everything else down the line lacks the ability to account for personal requests: You send in a broken box, they send back a fixed box. I wouldn't even expect the same physical unit to come back, personally. I'm curious how purchased content is handled, though, in the case of a drive failure.
Anyway, I think the guy had an unrealistic expectation, but then again maybe I've just lowered my expectations of big companies too far. I'm left wondering how this made front page news on slashdot, too.
I guess I should have wasted "first post" on something obvious like "Sharks with frikin' laser beams attached to their heads"
Yet another suggestion: a Beowulf cluster of these things could operate continuously and really wreak some havoc. The cluster would be so big though... I'd have to tell you about the twinkie.
Microsoft seems to always put profits ahead of what the user really wants. That's one reason why open source is cutting into their business so much - it's all about what people want.
Also, if you look at Google, they've organically grown their offerings over time and have been pretty unobtrusive about how they make their money (text-based ads, very plain search page). They've grown a huge base of loyal customers and done a fairly good job of not alienating them.
Microsoft also needs to refocus on quality. With the Internet and the popularity of social networking people have tons of software and recommendations at their fingertips. As as result, Microsoft can't rely so much on bundling because alternatives are everywhere.
The bottom line is Microsoft has to make some big changes in how it conducts business and how it serves its customers.
Low level infra-red red is thought to stimulate the growth of cells of all types of tissue and encourage their repair.
:)
What if you have cancer? Will it get worse or better? Can you focus it on your heart if you have heart problems? Or on your butt if you want to look like Jay-Lo? Ad nauseum...
I know I am dating myself(but hell I'm too dang old to care) but I was one of those idiots that bought a $200 4X DVD burner when they first came out ..
People who bought an early model DVD burner are already worried about dating themselves? Fuck. Now I feel *really* old.
this post won't make sense.
If however the courts can show that you knew the risks and consequences to having your network opened, and you had the means to do it, yet did not, you are much more likely to be held accountable.
And if you're a computer professional, they'd probably slam you even harder if you didn't secure your network.