But if you radiate, you're a target. There's always some little a-hole who wants to take you down for no other reason than than... Hey, look, it's Saturday! Never understimate the stupidity or maliciousness of a 14-year old skript kiddie.
Well, considering that some heavyweight companies created it, I'd consider it their prerogative to keep it proprietary. Certain things in life, electricity, water, etc. are public utilities because they are necessary for basic survival. IM doesn't, IMO, fall into that category, nor come anywhere near it.
What browser are you using to test this, because Firebird just says it times out? Perhaps my ISP pulled a workaround, but I have yet to get a Verisign page.
Yeah, I gotta admit, that one's a corker - but going after mostly innocent victims isn't the answer, either. Like the computer-licensing scheme, there's no way to put the cat back in the bag and start over, so to speak.
Unfortunately, we don't have a population of computer users who are mostly educated about the problems that can occur.
Personally, I find it to be rather telling evidence that a small team is more efficient than a large mob. With a small team of people, decisions can be made much more rapidly - they may later turn out to be wrong decisions, but it takes less time to disseminate information and corrections to the other team members.
As for FUD about MySQL, I don't see it in the article. MySQL is lacking some features that keep it from competing in the same spaces as Oracle, but that's a decision on the part of the MySQL team, not an oversight, AFAIK.
I see no mention of any punishment for the programmer who writes the virus. Does everyone here think that those bastards are doing a public service or something? Here's an idea: what we need is to rethink the priorities - let's punish all the innocent people for unwittingly being accomplices and let the actual criminals off scot-free! After all, they're only targeting Windows machines and not Linux, so who cares? It's not like these idiots are too busy to keep their machines updated, what with work, family, etc.
Google hasn't harmed anyone yet and here you are casting suspicion on their success?! That takes a lotta damn gall, I gotta say. It strikes me that you are suspicious by nature of anyone having a great degree of success, which is just sad.
So, if it bothers you that Google has succeeded, go somewhere else. No one is forcing you to use it. Or start your own. Round up your own investment funds, hire some people and start another search engine.
If anyone ever builds something better than Google that's as easy to use, I plan on using it, monopoly or no.
This doesn't appear to affect just browsers, though, but ANY software which uses a plug-in. So, no more music software which uses soft-synths, no more extensions in your favorite word processor, etc. Everything will have to be compiled in, which means software bloat out the wazoo.
Your argument sounds like sour grapes. Does it upset you that the web is no longer solely the domain of academics and nerds? You may not like Flash (it doesn't bother me all that much), but it is easy to use and easy to create new content with.
So perhaps your argument is that Flash usage is denied for the Linux platform. That's Macromedia's choice - if it was a public utility then perhaps it would be different, but Macromedia has chosen, either wilfully, or more likely perhaps ignorance, to not market to Linux users. It is their CHOICE. Frankly, I don't blame them - it is a little difficult to run down the numbers on exactly how many people use Linux as a desktop (not as a server) and how many of those people are actually interested in accessing multimedia content.
As for SVG - it's a case of "too little, too late". Sure, it's a standard, but it's a standard that didn't mature (if it's mature) until after the introduction of Flash content. So, by the process of technical Darwinism, SVG loses, which is correct. The tech/business world lives and dies by the maxim "You snooze, you lose".
SVG, CSS, and DOM cannot settle all the issues out there with informational layout (nor can Flash, I freely admit that), rather they are simply another tool to use, besides Flash and other less-popular plugins.
If licensing ever does become required (and I seriously doubt it), then only those who have a license to use the internet should be required to pay for it. Under the current model, everyone pays to a certain extent through end-user fees, taxes, etc.
If you raise the barrier to entry onto a mediaum, then the responsibility for that medium should rest solely on those who use it.
Frankly, I can't think of a better way to kill the internet than to require a license to use it.
Remember, standards are what made the Internet in the first place, and standards are what keep it ALIVE!
Actually, what keeps it alive is funding. Standards provide a method of making sure we are all playing on the same field.
Frankly, I think the standards process is holding back progress (among a lot of other things) by retarding the rate of change. But that's the process, not the actual standards themselves.
Yes, but you seemed to suggest that it should have been an obvious solution from the start for our airlines. It wasn't - cockpits being taken over by armed terrorists was simply something that we never thought would occur here.
There are lots of solutions that are blatantly obvious after the fact, but only because we look really hard for them after a tragedy. There a limits to what we can foresee happening.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft, for example, never expected that every a-hole with a compiler would go gunning for them by writing viruses and trojans. They were thinking "Hey, this is a neat idea".
I'm going to shut up now, because I just deleted a three paragraph rant that was completely off-topic.
Reading's still free, however, don't patronize Clearchannels advertizers. I didn't say this would be easy - in order for it to work, it has to hit a large number of people in the pocketbooks.
What you have to understand is - they've got all the money. About all we've got is our own money and the ability to spend it somewhere else.
El Al is based in a country that is locked in a perpetual shooting war with it's neighbors (which is our fault, but that's another matter entirely) who try to use very direct methods of action to achieve their goals of killing lots of Jewish people in their immediate vicinity.
We, on the other hand, have been mostly engaged in indirect wars, fighting by proxy with our enemies, who also used proxies to do the actual dirty work. The U.S. and the now-defunct Soviet Union very rarely engaged each other directly, and in fact, had a different view of the way war should be fought than the residents of the Middle East.
So, it was not an obvious solution for us here in the U.S. The sort of action that the hijackers took was so far outside our frame of reference that it was probably dismissed as paranoid fantasy by all but the most hardcore of our governemnt paranoiacs.
Basically, we underestimated the willingness of our enemy.
I've suggested this several times and gotten shot down or ignored on more than one occasion for not being realistic. Despite that, I totally agree - the boycott is an effective method of hitting RIAA where it lives.
However, I would add the following - go into your major chain with a flyer stating WHY you are boycotting their music and video selections. Hand it to the manager - if they get enough of them, then someone at the corporate level will be notified.
Second, boycott MTV/VH1 and your local Clearchannel station for obvious reasons. Again, they have to know that a boycott is in effect, so make with the flyers (but mail them, I suppose).
Third (and far less realistic), I would suggest extending the boycott in perpetuity until RIAA has a more reasonable stance and a less irritating manner. It would take a while, but losing sales during the Xmas rush and the post-Xmas sales period would definitely put them on notice that something was up.
Last, for maximum moral standing - don't download. That would only give them more ammunition. Remember, if you're going to take a moral stance, you can't half-ass it and try to slip something in the back door.
While the software might be open source, what guarantees do you have that the software you examined is what is installed in the machine?
Typically, there is a delay between examining the software and implementing it, usually for logistical reasons (inventory, machine deployment, etc.). It is entirely possible to put in logic, between the times of examination before the vote and after the vote, that would alter the results and disappear, leaving no trace that it was ever there.
Democrats cannot trust large companies like Diebold to perform this task, since their directors are clearly in the Republican camp. Republicans would be unwilling to trust a company whose leaders were in some other camp.
The basic problem here is not one of trusted or untrusted code, but rather trusted or untrusted PEOPLE. There are few or no people that everyone trusts implicitly.
The service industry is a good idea and one that works well for both large and small scale, but the raw product used to provide the service has to come from somewhere. A large proportion of small businesses can't afford the time and expense of one person dedicated to performing the "civic duty" since that person would require payment on a level equal to or greater than the remainder of the employees. Only in India do programmers work cheaply, not here in the U.S.
Second, it is necessary to overcome the competition mentality. I understand on some level that we're all in this boat together, but at the same time, we are all competing for a limited customer base. Too many suppliers of a given service or good dilutes the customer base to where no one survives. So, why should I provide free help to my competition? I am trying to beat them in the market, after all.
This is a simplistic view, but so far, the "provide support" model of OS/FS seems to be rather simplistic, when compared to the complexities of the real world.
Follow the money
on
Support FreeBSD
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I was under the impression that all or most of the money already went to the FreeBSD project.
Jabber is fine for small-group communication, but how well does it handle communication between individuals with different groupings, without having to have a multitude of Jabber servers?
For instance, I use IM to talk to people I work with and my friends. To connect all of them, someone would need to have a Jabber server set up that could connect all of us. No big problem, but then these others would need to access Jabber servers to talk to their friends who had no connection to me.
So then you have a problem with Jabber server proliferation (which is probably good for Jabber, but not so good for the people who have no interest in running it).
A monolithic service such as MSN can easily handle the requirements of communication with these groups, but Jabber cannot.
This is poorly stated, but I hope you see the point here.
Slashdot Mirror
But if you radiate, you're a target. There's always some little a-hole who wants to take you down for no other reason than than ... Hey, look, it's Saturday! Never understimate the stupidity or maliciousness of a 14-year old skript kiddie.
Well, considering that some heavyweight companies created it, I'd consider it their prerogative to keep it proprietary. Certain things in life, electricity, water, etc. are public utilities because they are necessary for basic survival. IM doesn't, IMO, fall into that category, nor come anywhere near it.
What browser are you using to test this, because Firebird just says it times out? Perhaps my ISP pulled a workaround, but I have yet to get a Verisign page.
Yeah, I gotta admit, that one's a corker - but going after mostly innocent victims isn't the answer, either. Like the computer-licensing scheme, there's no way to put the cat back in the bag and start over, so to speak.
Unfortunately, we don't have a population of computer users who are mostly educated about the problems that can occur.
Personally, I find it to be rather telling evidence that a small team is more efficient than a large mob. With a small team of people, decisions can be made much more rapidly - they may later turn out to be wrong decisions, but it takes less time to disseminate information and corrections to the other team members.
As for FUD about MySQL, I don't see it in the article. MySQL is lacking some features that keep it from competing in the same spaces as Oracle, but that's a decision on the part of the MySQL team, not an oversight, AFAIK.
I spent the whole morning talking into my mouse, trying to convince my computer to display the formula, but alas ...
I'm stuck with this quaint keyboard thing.
what about most hobbyists that want to fidle with new technology? Where do they get the money for new tools, machines, etc?
It's called a job. You know, where you do what someone wants or needs, and they pay you? With real money? That seems to work for most people.
I see no mention of any punishment for the programmer who writes the virus. Does everyone here think that those bastards are doing a public service or something? Here's an idea: what we need is to rethink the priorities - let's punish all the innocent people for unwittingly being accomplices and let the actual criminals off scot-free! After all, they're only targeting Windows machines and not Linux, so who cares? It's not like these idiots are too busy to keep their machines updated, what with work, family, etc.
Google hasn't harmed anyone yet and here you are casting suspicion on their success?! That takes a lotta damn gall, I gotta say. It strikes me that you are suspicious by nature of anyone having a great degree of success, which is just sad.
So, if it bothers you that Google has succeeded, go somewhere else. No one is forcing you to use it. Or start your own. Round up your own investment funds, hire some people and start another search engine.
If anyone ever builds something better than Google that's as easy to use, I plan on using it, monopoly or no.
This doesn't appear to affect just browsers, though, but ANY software which uses a plug-in. So, no more music software which uses soft-synths, no more extensions in your favorite word processor, etc. Everything will have to be compiled in, which means software bloat out the wazoo.
Your argument sounds like sour grapes. Does it upset you that the web is no longer solely the domain of academics and nerds? You may not like Flash (it doesn't bother me all that much), but it is easy to use and easy to create new content with.
So perhaps your argument is that Flash usage is denied for the Linux platform. That's Macromedia's choice - if it was a public utility then perhaps it would be different, but Macromedia has chosen, either wilfully, or more likely perhaps ignorance, to not market to Linux users. It is their CHOICE. Frankly, I don't blame them - it is a little difficult to run down the numbers on exactly how many people use Linux as a desktop (not as a server) and how many of those people are actually interested in accessing multimedia content.
As for SVG - it's a case of "too little, too late". Sure, it's a standard, but it's a standard that didn't mature (if it's mature) until after the introduction of Flash content. So, by the process of technical Darwinism, SVG loses, which is correct. The tech/business world lives and dies by the maxim "You snooze, you lose".
SVG, CSS, and DOM cannot settle all the issues out there with informational layout (nor can Flash, I freely admit that), rather they are simply another tool to use, besides Flash and other less-popular plugins.
If licensing ever does become required (and I seriously doubt it), then only those who have a license to use the internet should be required to pay for it. Under the current model, everyone pays to a certain extent through end-user fees, taxes, etc.
If you raise the barrier to entry onto a mediaum, then the responsibility for that medium should rest solely on those who use it.
Frankly, I can't think of a better way to kill the internet than to require a license to use it.
Remember, standards are what made the Internet in the first place, and standards are what keep it ALIVE!
Actually, what keeps it alive is funding. Standards provide a method of making sure we are all playing on the same field.
Frankly, I think the standards process is holding back progress (among a lot of other things) by retarding the rate of change. But that's the process, not the actual standards themselves.
Yes, but you seemed to suggest that it should have been an obvious solution from the start for our airlines. It wasn't - cockpits being taken over by armed terrorists was simply something that we never thought would occur here.
There are lots of solutions that are blatantly obvious after the fact, but only because we look really hard for them after a tragedy. There a limits to what we can foresee happening.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft, for example, never expected that every a-hole with a compiler would go gunning for them by writing viruses and trojans. They were thinking "Hey, this is a neat idea".
I'm going to shut up now, because I just deleted a three paragraph rant that was completely off-topic.
I bet at least one of your 8th-generation descendants will say that, too.
And you'll probably read the sign
Reading's still free, however, don't patronize Clearchannels advertizers. I didn't say this would be easy - in order for it to work, it has to hit a large number of people in the pocketbooks.
What you have to understand is - they've got all the money. About all we've got is our own money and the ability to spend it somewhere else.
El Al is based in a country that is locked in a perpetual shooting war with it's neighbors (which is our fault, but that's another matter entirely) who try to use very direct methods of action to achieve their goals of killing lots of Jewish people in their immediate vicinity.
We, on the other hand, have been mostly engaged in indirect wars, fighting by proxy with our enemies, who also used proxies to do the actual dirty work. The U.S. and the now-defunct Soviet Union very rarely engaged each other directly, and in fact, had a different view of the way war should be fought than the residents of the Middle East.
So, it was not an obvious solution for us here in the U.S. The sort of action that the hijackers took was so far outside our frame of reference that it was probably dismissed as paranoid fantasy by all but the most hardcore of our governemnt paranoiacs.
Basically, we underestimated the willingness of our enemy.
I've suggested this several times and gotten shot down or ignored on more than one occasion for not being realistic. Despite that, I totally agree - the boycott is an effective method of hitting RIAA where it lives.
However, I would add the following - go into your major chain with a flyer stating WHY you are boycotting their music and video selections. Hand it to the manager - if they get enough of them, then someone at the corporate level will be notified.
Second, boycott MTV/VH1 and your local Clearchannel station for obvious reasons. Again, they have to know that a boycott is in effect, so make with the flyers (but mail them, I suppose).
Third (and far less realistic), I would suggest extending the boycott in perpetuity until RIAA has a more reasonable stance and a less irritating manner. It would take a while, but losing sales during the Xmas rush and the post-Xmas sales period would definitely put them on notice that something was up.
Last, for maximum moral standing - don't download. That would only give them more ammunition. Remember, if you're going to take a moral stance, you can't half-ass it and try to slip something in the back door.
A trade is also a sale, although a non-monetary one. You are giving something of value and receiving something of value for it in return.
So basically, a trade would have to be handled in the same way as a monetary sale, but with TWICE the overhead.
While the software might be open source, what guarantees do you have that the software you examined is what is installed in the machine?
Typically, there is a delay between examining the software and implementing it, usually for logistical reasons (inventory, machine deployment, etc.). It is entirely possible to put in logic, between the times of examination before the vote and after the vote, that would alter the results and disappear, leaving no trace that it was ever there.
Democrats cannot trust large companies like Diebold to perform this task, since their directors are clearly in the Republican camp. Republicans would be unwilling to trust a company whose leaders were in some other camp.
The basic problem here is not one of trusted or untrusted code, but rather trusted or untrusted PEOPLE. There are few or no people that everyone trusts implicitly.
DRM will just make stupid gits try harder to screw everything up for everyone else.
I suppose this is something we must live with, but it is extraordinarily annoying to have to accept the security evaluation of a pseudonymous author.
Please don't let France know your opinion - they'll become insufferable.
Oh, yeah, and don't let the Department of Homeland Security or the Justice Department know either.
For obvious reasons.
The service industry is a good idea and one that works well for both large and small scale, but the raw product used to provide the service has to come from somewhere. A large proportion of small businesses can't afford the time and expense of one person dedicated to performing the "civic duty" since that person would require payment on a level equal to or greater than the remainder of the employees. Only in India do programmers work cheaply, not here in the U.S.
Second, it is necessary to overcome the competition mentality. I understand on some level that we're all in this boat together, but at the same time, we are all competing for a limited customer base. Too many suppliers of a given service or good dilutes the customer base to where no one survives. So, why should I provide free help to my competition? I am trying to beat them in the market, after all.
This is a simplistic view, but so far, the "provide support" model of OS/FS seems to be rather simplistic, when compared to the complexities of the real world.
I was under the impression that all or most of the money already went to the FreeBSD project.
Jabber is fine for small-group communication, but how well does it handle communication between individuals with different groupings, without having to have a multitude of Jabber servers?
For instance, I use IM to talk to people I work with and my friends. To connect all of them, someone would need to have a Jabber server set up that could connect all of us. No big problem, but then these others would need to access Jabber servers to talk to their friends who had no connection to me.
So then you have a problem with Jabber server proliferation (which is probably good for Jabber, but not so good for the people who have no interest in running it).
A monolithic service such as MSN can easily handle the requirements of communication with these groups, but Jabber cannot.
This is poorly stated, but I hope you see the point here.