I'm torn between the cushy redundancy offered by decentralization, and the cushy security of having most of the servers in a stable, well-protected country.
Fuirst of all, Germany is what most knowlegable people would call a "stable, well protected country".
Second, that in and of itself does not affect the security or reliability of DNS as it is designed very much, and has even less signifigance now that anycast is proven to be a reliable technique for increasing redundancy.
The biggest dispute about DNS security (and internet security in general) is between those who prefer centralized, single point solutions, and those who prefer distributed, autonomous security measures. IMHO, centralized security creates weakness in most (all?) cases by creating a single point of failure, and is an approach that is most often motivated by the desire to exert control over internet usage in hopes of personal gain (re: VeriSign), and to establish an authority because of a misguided belief that there need be one.
The internet's basic strength is due to it's lack of dependance on centralized authorities in order to work. Any proposals that change that basic assumption are either poorly thought out or suspect.
The recent flurry of articles giving the impression that VeriSign is somehow "in charge" of DNS has been rather irritating, when in fact, it is not difficult to configure your DNS server to ignore VeriSign operated root servers. (If you're using bind, dont include thier roots in your roots.cache zone file. I'm sure there's an equivalent trick for djbdns.)
I wish all of those who are about to continue the current flood of "what difference does it make?" and "VeriSign controls DNS anyway." posts would kindly read this article and this one as well for a breif tutorial on DNS from that programmer who writes good shit but everyone says they hate him anyway, D. J. Bernstein.
If you like the subject, maybe you should go out and buy a copy of DNS and BIND so you'll have something interesting to talk about at the coffee house this weekend.
The truth is that DNS is a distributed system that is rather well designed to be redundant. The anycast implementation mentioned in the article is a good and needed way (it's the right way[tm]) to increase the redundancy that is already inherent in the system, making DNS much more secure and resistant to DDOS attacks and other attempts to disrupt DNS service. VeriSign showing off thier "secure" sites, and blowing thier own horn about how "important" they in particular are to the internet is a load of sh*t that should not be given a second thought unless you are in the habit of educating our lawmakers about related issues. Not an especially good habit, it will make you enemies (but only if you're right).
There are Indian and Chinese Ph.d's working for under $30,000
Hell, I know plenty of American PHD's that work for less than $30,000.00, and for most of them it's not because thier jobs were outsourced, but because PHDs are not very highly valued by American culture.
The American companies are saving a few dollars when they outsource overseas, but not as much as you'd think, as they are then incurring management expenses that they would not otherwise have, and as the foriegn programmers are not working directly for the American companies, there is the (usually large) profit margin that is charged on top of the cost of the work. (No foriegn companies do not resell thier labor at a loss.)
Laying off workers drives the stock price up because of the perception that money is being saved (in spite of the reality of production being cut). Outsourcing to India drives the stock price up due to the perception of money being saved (in spite of the added costs and the larger phenomenon of money being extracted from the largest market available to tech firms).
See any similarities between those two examples?
In both cases you have fewer people working in our country (yes, I am an American), and you have a rise in the price of the stock that reduces the number of American jobs.
In the second case there is the additional phenomenon of a portion of the companies budget leaving the American economy so as to be invested in the economy of the foriegn country (meaning less money invested back into the American economy) and the correlating phenomenon of the foriegn economy becoming more dependant on American investment.
The truth is that none of our ecconomic problems stem from the existance of Open Source, but from the management practices of those who run, and the investmentpractices of those who own, the companies that employ us.
The same thing happened in England at the end of the Nineteenth Century, putting the majoprity of the country out of work (The Victorian era was more like "Oliver Twist" and less like "Mary Poppins"), and the trend toward outsourcing both skilled and unskilled labor is simply the evidence of growing (neo-)colonialism in America.
If you don't like it, then you should refuse to give your money to the companies that are taking part in this. For tech, that pretty much leaves you with Open Source.
The scary thing is that SCO, no matter how wrong thier case may be, is more relevant now than they've been in years. The fact that SCO's execs know the language of finance, marketing and business makes them relevant, as that is the language that most of our representatives in Congress speak every day. The fact that thier parent company (The Canopy Group) is a well known investment house owned by a board of influential, respected, and well connected investors makes them relevant. And the fact that we live in a culture where very few people can see worth in something that has not been paid for makes SCO relevant.
Not everyone yet understands what Open Source is about, and not everyone who does understand Open Source views it as a "Good Thing(tm)". There are several reasons that the Open Source community should not be lulled into taking SCO's actions lightly, as the bigger picture that is being presented by this lobbying effort is that this dispute is not simply about a "breach of contract", nor is it simply a licensing dispute, but is more about a group of people that extends far beyond SCO and Microsoft that view the GPL and other Free Software licensing as a threat to thier way of life and thier controll over sections of the ecconomy.
To those of us who learned on Linux, and to those of us who have been using Linux for a very long time, Linux seems like an innocuous part of the computing landscape. But to the established software industry, (and to the publishing, media distribution, and entertainment industries) Linux and other Free and Open Source technologies are considered to be "Disruptive Technologies" that have the potential to change the landscape of "thier" portion of the economy.
Yeh, I know, use preview, pay attention to what you're typing, etc, etc... (I saw it after I hit "submit". I guess old age is beginning to set in.)
just the same, "Mike Rowe Software" would likely be considered an eponymous company name, as long as Mike Lowe is his name, and writing or sellong software is his business.
Opening a restaurant called MickDonalds wouldn't be acceptable nor would a WaltMart
In many states, there are protections for persons operating businesses under thier real names, ad I'm sure that if your birth certificate showed your name as Mick Donald, you would be permitted tpo open a "Mick Donald's Restaurant"" (but probably not "MickDonald's") or a "Walt Mart's Store" (likewise not "WaltMart"). If your business was a chain, this would need to be decided in each and every state you do business in (every statye's "ficticious name" regulations are different), and you would probably not be permitted to franchise it in many states (as you would not own the individual franchises). In some states you only recieve this (eponymous name) protection if the business is a "sole propietarship".
Without such protections, it would be possible to "name squat" real world business names, much as unscrupulous investors have been url squating on the internet, and force people to pay a fee (trademark licensing) to run a business under thier own name.
First we legitimize the government's "right" to regulate our internet based communication, then we applaud them when they push for jail time based on the content of your communication.
Real bright folks, aren't we.
I dislike spam as much as anyone, but the can-spam act has done little more than set legal precident for the government regulating internet based communications based on content, legitimized entire classes of spam (that are no less irritating) as "protected" from regulation (again based on content).
I never thought I'd see the day when geeks would cheer at the idea of a government censor, but I guess I was wrong. Now that the floodgates are open, I'm sure that we can expect future laws to regulate the sending of email containing "terrorism related" subjects such as communications protocols, encryption techniques, security implementations, and basic networking technology. Of course, those who are employed by "authorized" companies will be exempted from these regulations, as only they will have the "legitimate purposes" and "need to know" to be allowed such "dangerous" communication.
that this story is submitted today, as it was on Martin Luther King Day in 1990 that the AT&T long distance service crashed due to a poorly implemented software update and provides us with both an example of the inherent weakness of a Software Monoculture, and the efforts of law enforcement to misrepresent such events in order to increase government regulation over communications. (I wrote more about this in another post.)
Giving in to pressure to limit access to information, and to allow a centralized service manage our personal privacy and security, will do nothing to increase the security of the internet and will do everything to limit our expectations of privacy and personal liberties.
But for now CyberTerrorism is still a fiction, we haven't yet seen any. At most all we've seen is CyberVandalism and CyberPettycrime.
This article brings to mind the hacker crackdown of the late 1980s and early 1990s (Bruce Sterling wrote a fairly good book about this) when the Secret Service was arresting kids for distributing publicly available documents, raiding game publishers and seizing thier computers, and spreading rumor and inuendo about the crash of AT&Ts long distance service that occurred on Martin Luter King Day in 1990.
While the graver danger we face as individuals is the potential loss of our privacy, freedom, civil liberties, and access to (accurate, non-biased) information to an ever growing government/corporate power structure, the media and our elected officials churn out statements such as the Baio's in order to create paranoia and a feeling of powerlessness among the general public, and to engender acceptance of oppressive regulation, control over the distribution of information, and the removal of privacy protections.
The author of the article is helping to set the stage for acceptance of Microsoft's "Trusted Computing" infrastructure, when the real problem is (as it was on MLK day in 1990) the growing monoculture of the internet (and general computing) infrastructure (which in turn is necessary for effective manditory DRM, manditory centralized personal data collection, and un-circumventable user monitoring).
If you care to call me a liar, identify yourself and cite specific instances in which I have been deceptive.
The question is not one of lying, but of the absolute arrogance of a corporation that does not examine the effect they are having on the people they are pretending to serve and the loyalty and belief that thier employees place in that coprporation while not truly understanding who the customers are.
While yoyu as a DJ might believe that you are serving the "listening public", the truth is that your customers are not the listeners, but are the advertisers who buy airtime on your station. The customers of your parent corporation are not only the individual advertisers, but also the record companies that wish to get airtime for thier music (which is advertising for acts and for record sales).
Like all companies that produce a salable product (ie: your listeners), your companies wishes to produce a quality product that will maximise the benefit to your most customers. In the case of ClearChannel, so playlist guidelines are tailored to benefit the member companies of the RIAA, and specifically to not benefit those acts and studios that are not members.
The listening community is your product, and always has been. That product is lower quality (in your customjers eyes) if it does not adapt the attitudes (consumerism) and beliefs (brand loyalty) that benefit your customers (the advertisers and reccord companies). Music that gets played either promotes those attitudes and ideas, or at least does not undermine them. The playlists do not reflect the wishes of the listeners (ie: the Dixie Chicks drop from the playlists less than a day after thier statement was publicized), but instead reflects the wishes of your customers (music debuting high on the charts before any listeners have actually heard the song).
All I have done is relate my personal experience inside Clear Channel, even if it doesn't square with the lazy and ill-informed popular tendency to tar the company with every ill ever committed in the industry.
Your brand loyalty is impressive in it's completeness and you willingness to adhere to the dogma will surely be rewarded. At least you will not be punnished for expressing your individual thoughts and beliefs about your employer, as you haven't yet shared those thoughts and beliefs with us.
Clear Channel never put out a "Banned Songs List" from corperate.
Oh really, I guess it was up to the DJs to decide what songs they thought that "corperate"(sic) wouldn't want to hear.
There wasn't any order from corperate as much as there was an online groupthink
So I guess it isn't quite censoprship if "corperate"(sic) lets you know the "type" of thing they object to and leaves it up to you to cover your own butts. "Groupthink" is an apropriate word for this, and banning a song like Lennon's "Imagine" after an event like 9-11 shows "groupthink" for the bullshit, bad idea, spineless pandering that it is.
The "ban" on playing the Dixie Chicks was requested by their own fans.
The drop on the playlist began the day following the comment (anticipating any record of a change in sales) and, acknowledging radio play as the advertising that it is, is an example of the power that the radio playlists have over record sales. If the playlist was actually following the popularity of the music rather than a shallow attempt at corporate manipulation of what people should (or should not) buy, then the playlist frequencies would likely reflecty the popular downloads.
A standard open source health care database and form that is managed by the federal government
I'd much rather see a standard data format, or a standard interface for data transfer between providers than a centralized database.
I am very wary of the current trend towards centralization of personal data, and I have not seen any proposals intended to regulate the sharing of the data (eg: a Right to Privacy Act that is applicable to private companies as well as governmental organisations), nor have I seen the existing privacy regulations enforced recently to the extent that they once were.
A distributed database maintained by the individual providers that allows sharing of data at the patient's request would be a much more reasonable answer. There could be allowances for emergency situations (eg: patient is comotose and there is no next of kin) that would ensure caregivers access to necessary information, as long as the patient would be notified of what info was shared.
I really don't like the idea of a centralized database that would allow "authorized" companies and individuals access to the entire collection, as I'm sure that others would not like recieving "Health Care Option notifications" (Half off on all pulminary bypass surgery! Now through March. Ask about our no-money-down financing for cosmetic procedures while you are there!) from every pharmaceutical company (Zoloft and Welbutrin! Upset about your job? Buy now and never be upset again!) that happens to have invested in a hospital or insurance company. It is sometimes better that all of that information is not in one place.
I believe that the article is refering to the time wasted by the software vendors who do not make the effort to create a robust product. Of course there are many support personel who view this as a good thing, as they are dependant on poorly written apps, continuous patching, and forced upgrades to ensure thier employment.
apt-file is a utility for searching the available packages list to find what package provides a particular file.
This could be used to determine what packages are needed to provide the executables in/[usr/]bin and/[usr/]sbin. Dependancies take care of themselves, but automating package specific configuration conversions would likely be a bit of work, but not impossible.
Of course all of this does depend on being able to download the utility from his now/.ed server.
And it would help if the Debian project drops their snotty attitude versus KDE.
What attitude towards KDE? It seems that you are as behind on you news as Woody is on current applications.
The dispute was settled a few years ago when the KDE developers happily pressured TrollTech to clean up thier licensing so QT could be legally used in GPL projects.
From reading your link, it does seem that there is a question about some of the SkyOS licensed software being modified from GPL sources.
I also found few references to SkyOS as an open-source project on Google, as well as more than one article about possiblegpl violations.
It may be all a big misunderstanding, or it may be that SkyOS is indeed built of modified PGL sourcees.
Does anyone have a link to the SkyOS license? It is refered to on thier download page (see above link), but I haven't been able to find a copy of it anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm torn between the cushy redundancy offered by decentralization, and the cushy security of having most of the servers in a stable, well-protected country.
Fuirst of all, Germany is what most knowlegable people would call a "stable, well protected country".
Second, that in and of itself does not affect the security or reliability of DNS as it is designed very much, and has even less signifigance now that anycast is proven to be a reliable technique for increasing redundancy.
D. J. Bernstein has provided some good introductory about the workings of DNS, including security.
There's a chapter on DNS security from "DNS and BIND" available at the O'reilly website as well.
The biggest dispute about DNS security (and internet security in general) is between those who prefer centralized, single point solutions, and those who prefer distributed, autonomous security measures. IMHO, centralized security creates weakness in most (all?) cases by creating a single point of failure, and is an approach that is most often motivated by the desire to exert control over internet usage in hopes of personal gain (re: VeriSign), and to establish an authority because of a misguided belief that there need be one.
The internet's basic strength is due to it's lack of dependance on centralized authorities in order to work. Any proposals that change that basic assumption are either poorly thought out or suspect.
what they are talking about for a change.
The recent flurry of articles giving the impression that VeriSign is somehow "in charge" of DNS has been rather irritating, when in fact, it is not difficult to configure your DNS server to ignore VeriSign operated root servers. (If you're using bind, dont include thier roots in your roots.cache zone file. I'm sure there's an equivalent trick for djbdns.)
I wish all of those who are about to continue the current flood of "what difference does it make?" and "VeriSign controls DNS anyway." posts would kindly read this article and this one as well for a breif tutorial on DNS from that programmer who writes good shit but everyone says they hate him anyway, D. J. Bernstein.
If you like the subject, maybe you should go out and buy a copy of DNS and BIND so you'll have something interesting to talk about at the coffee house this weekend.
The truth is that DNS is a distributed system that is rather well designed to be redundant. The anycast implementation mentioned in the article is a good and needed way (it's the right way[tm]) to increase the redundancy that is already inherent in the system, making DNS much more secure and resistant to DDOS attacks and other attempts to disrupt DNS service. VeriSign showing off thier "secure" sites, and blowing thier own horn about how "important" they in particular are to the internet is a load of sh*t that should not be given a second thought unless you are in the habit of educating our lawmakers about related issues. Not an especially good habit, it will make you enemies (but only if you're right).
How would libtarianism deal with powerful civilian organisations like Microsoft?
The same way every other political party deals with powerful NGOs:
"Where's our donation?"
and
"Thank you for your support."
There are Indian and Chinese Ph.d's working for under $30,000
Hell, I know plenty of American PHD's that work for less than $30,000.00, and for most of them it's not because thier jobs were outsourced, but because PHDs are not very highly valued by American culture.
The American companies are saving a few dollars when they outsource overseas, but not as much as you'd think, as they are then incurring management expenses that they would not otherwise have, and as the foriegn programmers are not working directly for the American companies, there is the (usually large) profit margin that is charged on top of the cost of the work. (No foriegn companies do not resell thier labor at a loss.)
Laying off workers drives the stock price up because of the perception that money is being saved (in spite of the reality of production being cut). Outsourcing to India drives the stock price up due to the perception of money being saved (in spite of the added costs and the larger phenomenon of money being extracted from the largest market available to tech firms).
See any similarities between those two examples?
In both cases you have fewer people working in our country (yes, I am an American), and you have a rise in the price of the stock that reduces the number of American jobs.
In the second case there is the additional phenomenon of a portion of the companies budget leaving the American economy so as to be invested in the economy of the foriegn country (meaning less money invested back into the American economy) and the correlating phenomenon of the foriegn economy becoming more dependant on American investment.
The truth is that none of our ecconomic problems stem from the existance of Open Source, but from the management practices of those who run, and the investmentpractices of those who own, the companies that employ us.
The same thing happened in England at the end of the Nineteenth Century, putting the majoprity of the country out of work (The Victorian era was more like "Oliver Twist" and less like "Mary Poppins"), and the trend toward outsourcing both skilled and unskilled labor is simply the evidence of growing (neo-)colonialism in America.
If you don't like it, then you should refuse to give your money to the companies that are taking part in this. For tech, that pretty much leaves you with Open Source.
SCO is soooo not even relavent anymore.
The scary thing is that SCO, no matter how wrong thier case may be, is more relevant now than they've been in years. The fact that SCO's execs know the language of finance, marketing and business makes them relevant, as that is the language that most of our representatives in Congress speak every day. The fact that thier parent company (The Canopy Group) is a well known investment house owned by a board of influential, respected, and well connected investors makes them relevant. And the fact that we live in a culture where very few people can see worth in something that has not been paid for makes SCO relevant.
Not everyone yet understands what Open Source is about, and not everyone who does understand Open Source views it as a "Good Thing(tm)". There are several reasons that the Open Source community should not be lulled into taking SCO's actions lightly, as the bigger picture that is being presented by this lobbying effort is that this dispute is not simply about a "breach of contract", nor is it simply a licensing dispute, but is more about a group of people that extends far beyond SCO and Microsoft that view the GPL and other Free Software licensing as a threat to thier way of life and thier controll over sections of the ecconomy.
To those of us who learned on Linux, and to those of us who have been using Linux for a very long time, Linux seems like an innocuous part of the computing landscape. But to the established software industry, (and to the publishing, media distribution, and entertainment industries) Linux and other Free and Open Source technologies are considered to be "Disruptive Technologies" that have the potential to change the landscape of "thier" portion of the economy.
Yeh, I know, use preview, pay attention to what you're typing, etc, etc... (I saw it after I hit "submit". I guess old age is beginning to set in.)
just the same, "Mike Rowe Software" would likely be considered an eponymous company name, as long as Mike Lowe is his name, and writing or sellong software is his business.
Depending on the "eponymous name" protections in his locale, he may be able to get away with "Mike Lowe Software" and thus "mikelowesoftware.com"
Opening a restaurant called MickDonalds wouldn't be acceptable nor would a WaltMart
In many states, there are protections for persons operating businesses under thier real names, ad I'm sure that if your birth certificate showed your name as Mick Donald, you would be permitted tpo open a "Mick Donald's Restaurant"" (but probably not "MickDonald's") or a "Walt Mart's Store" (likewise not "WaltMart"). If your business was a chain, this would need to be decided in each and every state you do business in (every statye's "ficticious name" regulations are different), and you would probably not be permitted to franchise it in many states (as you would not own the individual franchises). In some states you only recieve this (eponymous name) protection if the business is a "sole propietarship".
Without such protections, it would be possible to "name squat" real world business names, much as unscrupulous investors have been url squating on the internet, and force people to pay a fee (trademark licensing) to run a business under thier own name.
First we legitimize the government's "right" to regulate our internet based communication, then we applaud them when they push for jail time based on the content of your communication.
Real bright folks, aren't we.
I dislike spam as much as anyone, but the can-spam act has done little more than set legal precident for the government regulating internet based communications based on content, legitimized entire classes of spam (that are no less irritating) as "protected" from regulation (again based on content).
I never thought I'd see the day when geeks would cheer at the idea of a government censor, but I guess I was wrong. Now that the floodgates are open, I'm sure that we can expect future laws to regulate the sending of email containing "terrorism related" subjects such as communications protocols, encryption techniques, security implementations, and basic networking technology. Of course, those who are employed by "authorized" companies will be exempted from these regulations, as only they will have the "legitimate purposes" and "need to know" to be allowed such "dangerous" communication.
that this story is submitted today, as it was on Martin Luther King Day in 1990 that the AT&T long distance service crashed due to a poorly implemented software update and provides us with both an example of the inherent weakness of a Software Monoculture, and the efforts of law enforcement to misrepresent such events in order to increase government regulation over communications. (I wrote more about this in another post.)
Giving in to pressure to limit access to information, and to allow a centralized service manage our personal privacy and security, will do nothing to increase the security of the internet and will do everything to limit our expectations of privacy and personal liberties.
I also think that cyber terrorism is a bad thing
But for now CyberTerrorism is still a fiction, we haven't yet seen any. At most all we've seen is CyberVandalism and CyberPettycrime.
This article brings to mind the hacker crackdown of the late 1980s and early 1990s (Bruce Sterling wrote a fairly good book about this) when the Secret Service was arresting kids for distributing publicly available documents, raiding game publishers and seizing thier computers, and spreading rumor and inuendo about the crash of AT&Ts long distance service that occurred on Martin Luter King Day in 1990.
While the graver danger we face as individuals is the potential loss of our privacy, freedom, civil liberties, and access to (accurate, non-biased) information to an ever growing government/corporate power structure, the media and our elected officials churn out statements such as the Baio's in order to create paranoia and a feeling of powerlessness among the general public, and to engender acceptance of oppressive regulation, control over the distribution of information, and the removal of privacy protections.
The author of the article is helping to set the stage for acceptance of Microsoft's "Trusted Computing" infrastructure, when the real problem is (as it was on MLK day in 1990) the growing monoculture of the internet (and general computing) infrastructure (which in turn is necessary for effective manditory DRM, manditory centralized personal data collection, and un-circumventable user monitoring).
Those who say differently are lying, guessing, or wishing.
Ah, cult logic.
How refreshing.
If you care to call me a liar, identify yourself and cite specific instances in which I have been deceptive.
The question is not one of lying, but of the absolute arrogance of a corporation that does not examine the effect they are having on the people they are pretending to serve and the loyalty and belief that thier employees place in that coprporation while not truly understanding who the customers are.
While yoyu as a DJ might believe that you are serving the "listening public", the truth is that your customers are not the listeners, but are the advertisers who buy airtime on your station. The customers of your parent corporation are not only the individual advertisers, but also the record companies that wish to get airtime for thier music (which is advertising for acts and for record sales).
Like all companies that produce a salable product (ie: your listeners), your companies wishes to produce a quality product that will maximise the benefit to your most customers. In the case of ClearChannel, so playlist guidelines are tailored to benefit the member companies of the RIAA, and specifically to not benefit those acts and studios that are not members.
The listening community is your product, and always has been. That product is lower quality (in your customjers eyes) if it does not adapt the attitudes (consumerism) and beliefs (brand loyalty) that benefit your customers (the advertisers and reccord companies). Music that gets played either promotes those attitudes and ideas, or at least does not undermine them. The playlists do not reflect the wishes of the listeners (ie: the Dixie Chicks drop from the playlists less than a day after thier statement was publicized), but instead reflects the wishes of your customers (music debuting high on the charts before any listeners have actually heard the song).
All I have done is relate my personal experience inside Clear Channel, even if it doesn't square with the lazy and ill-informed popular tendency to tar the company with every ill ever committed in the industry.
Your brand loyalty is impressive in it's completeness and you willingness to adhere to the dogma will surely be rewarded. At least you will not be punnished for expressing your individual thoughts and beliefs about your employer, as you haven't yet shared those thoughts and beliefs with us.
Someone else said it better.
(Yes, it's a cover, but it still tells the truth better than you or your colleagues ever did.)
Clear Channel never put out a "Banned Songs List" from corperate.
Oh really, I guess it was up to the DJs to decide what songs they thought that "corperate"(sic) wouldn't want to hear.
There wasn't any order from corperate as much as there was an online groupthink
So I guess it isn't quite censoprship if "corperate"(sic) lets you know the "type" of thing they object to and leaves it up to you to cover your own butts. "Groupthink" is an apropriate word for this, and banning a song like Lennon's "Imagine" after an event like 9-11 shows "groupthink" for the bullshit, bad idea, spineless pandering that it is.
The "ban" on playing the Dixie Chicks was requested by their own fans.
The drop on the playlist began the day following the comment (anticipating any record of a change in sales) and, acknowledging radio play as the advertising that it is, is an example of the power that the radio playlists have over record sales. If the playlist was actually following the popularity of the music rather than a shallow attempt at corporate manipulation of what people should (or should not) buy, then the playlist frequencies would likely reflecty the popular downloads.
AFAICT, they do not.
Americans may be sheep, and American Idol may be an example of that, but in that one respect Americans are hardly alone.
A standard open source health care database and form that is managed by the federal government
I'd much rather see a standard data format, or a standard interface for data transfer between providers than a centralized database.
I am very wary of the current trend towards centralization of personal data, and I have not seen any proposals intended to regulate the sharing of the data (eg: a Right to Privacy Act that is applicable to private companies as well as governmental organisations), nor have I seen the existing privacy regulations enforced recently to the extent that they once were.
A distributed database maintained by the individual providers that allows sharing of data at the patient's request would be a much more reasonable answer. There could be allowances for emergency situations (eg: patient is comotose and there is no next of kin) that would ensure caregivers access to necessary information, as long as the patient would be notified of what info was shared.
I really don't like the idea of a centralized database that would allow "authorized" companies and individuals access to the entire collection, as I'm sure that others would not like recieving "Health Care Option notifications" (Half off on all pulminary bypass surgery! Now through March. Ask about our no-money-down financing for cosmetic procedures while you are there!) from every pharmaceutical company (Zoloft and Welbutrin! Upset about your job? Buy now and never be upset again!) that happens to have invested in a hospital or insurance company. It is sometimes better that all of that information is not in one place.
How could it be classed as 'wasted'
I believe that the article is refering to the time wasted by the software vendors who do not make the effort to create a robust product. Of course there are many support personel who view this as a good thing, as they are dependant on poorly written apps, continuous patching, and forced upgrades to ensure thier employment.
No, the State Pen (Rockview) is down the road at Pleasant Gap, PA.
My Dad tells me that during the forties the bonehead students would park along the highway to watch the lights dim.
which is locted in the exact center of the state.
It's actually a little left of center, at least when the students are away.
apt-file is a utility for searching the available packages list to find what package provides a particular file.
/[usr/]bin and /[usr/]sbin. Dependancies take care of themselves, but automating package specific configuration conversions would likely be a bit of work, but not impossible.
/.ed server.
This could be used to determine what packages are needed to provide the executables in
Of course all of this does depend on being able to download the utility from his now
Only with mint source
I hope that's Open Mint Source you're refering to!
And it would help if the Debian project drops their snotty attitude versus KDE.
What attitude towards KDE? It seems that you are as behind on you news as Woody is on current applications.
The dispute was settled a few years ago when the KDE developers happily pressured TrollTech to clean up thier licensing so QT could be legally used in GPL projects.
I can store the porn of 10 regular men!
Are you implying that the amount of fiber in your diet somehow affects your ability to download porn?
Apparently much of SkyOS is built on GPLed Software.
From reading your link, it does seem that there is a question about some of the SkyOS licensed software being modified from GPL sources.
I also found few references to SkyOS as an open-source project on Google, as well as more than one article about possible gpl violations.
It may be all a big misunderstanding, or it may be that SkyOS is indeed built of modified PGL sourcees.
Does anyone have a link to the SkyOS license? It is refered to on thier download page (see above link), but I haven't been able to find a copy of it anywhere.