but I love it when i hear stories like this. Not just about how girls don't want to enter a technical career, but stories like the skills shortage, inability of IT businesses to find staff, lack of interest amongst school kids to pursue an IT tertiary education etc etc. It just means that the pay packets stay high in our industry;-)
Every year we keep creating better and better technologies which expand our available bandwidth for communications. Will we ever reach a point when the amount of data that we want to transmit saturates our communication bandwidth?
With 'everything' being networked and everything talking to everything else in the near future is it conceivable that our advances (such as the optical switching) won't keep up with the growth in transmitted data?
Could it reach the point where we have communication restrictions (like water restrictions:-). eg only allowed to send emails on odd days, or no emails over 3k in size:P
I now look forward to that juicy massively parallel IBM computer that was mentioned yesterday on SLashdot... just got to build that garden shed to house it... the garden shed the size of two basketball courts:)... hey if someone can build a rocket in their bark garden (slashdot from a couple of days ago), I don't see why I can't have my massive parallel computer!:P
If I left my parked car unlocked and someone hopped in and stole it - proceeded to drive down a freeway, had a accident and caused a major traffic pile-up where several people died, would I be responsible?
I would say no.
However, if you use the analogy that Smith used: if one were to leave a loaded gun laying about and if another person picked it up and killed someone with it, the owner of that gun would be held responsible for negligence
I would say yes.
So what is the difference? I don't know myself - I just thought I'd provoke some thinking amongst everyone and hopefully someone else who is thinking straight at the moment (it late at night here) can give some insight!:)
Forgot about the HTML formattint! My post should have read...
If they achieve the 10 Gb/cm capacity like they are forecasting, then finally I will be able to have the a (insert favourite MP3 player) that can hold a decent amount of MP3s
MS should be forced to open the API's that allow MSIE to integrate so closely with the OS such that *any* browser could do the same.
Therefore if you wanted, you could have Netscape/Opera etc etc as the integrated browser of choice. That I would think would do wonders for promoting competion and fostering innovation.
2. Documents: For 90% of the documents that most people in an office environment use/create/read, etc., they're probably not using any of the 'advanced' features that would normally break compatibility. It's the other 10% who've got all the macros, templates, graphs, OLE links, and undocumented file format features that will have trouble.
While I can appreciate where you are coming from with this statement, most moderate to large sized businesses would havily use macros, template, and graphs. All those standard document templates customised for the business, those graphs portraying SLAs and metrics etc. This would be one of the key issues for compatability.
It was downgraded to Flamebait, but obviously other moderators have a sense of humour and don't take their Open Source to *fanatical* levels. Cool- nice to see the moderation system works:) (to my favour anyway:)
It's so easy to terraform Mars and make it suitable for human habitation. All you got to do is ship a few Open Source fanatics over to Mars.
That way...
All the rhetoric and hot air generated by GPL/Open Source fanatics could heat the planet.
Mentioning the word 'Open Source' or 'Linux' would cause the fanatics to wet themselves thereby providing a source of liquid (you would probably need to process the liquid a bit)
You could eat the fanatics when you get hungry - and they would be plump and juicy since they would never have done any work in their lives (who needs to when you can get music for free through Napster).
You would never run out of fanatics before there are more jumping on the bandwagon everyday
*ducks back into the trenches having stirred up a hornets nest of stereotypes*:)
According to the article, Linux people need to convince marketing people that 1. there is a market of Linux users who use the OS for more than just servers, 2. that the market is large enough to support first rate games, and 3. that the publishers can make money supporting Linux, or their developers can gain great enough non-monetary benefits to justify the expense of developing for and supporting multiple platforms
Well why don't we distribute full versions (with no restrictions) of all Linux games that currently exist and in the future using Napster.
That would grow the population of people who would play Linux games.
Oh wait, that would mean that the Linux developers wouldn't get any money for it which means they wouldn't develop the software...
Hang on, how does this compare to the Metallica issue? What is the difference between trading mp3s and Linux games? You're not stealing cos the original copy is still there (just using one of the arguments from previous discussions). Is it okay to trade mp3s on Napster simply because Metallica is rich?
Would anyone disagree that distributing Linux games on Napster severly limit if not kill the Linux game market?
I'm interested to hear other peoples views on this...
Worst toxic subst in SV is caffiene!
on
Silicon Hell
·
· Score: 1
Actually the most toxic substance in Silicon Valley is all the caffienated beverages! Ahhhh, time for my caffiene injection...
> Bad faith for sure Yes I will agree with you on that point.
Metallica needs to get with the Internet age, as do the rest of the millionaires whining about their intellectual property being pirated."
This kind of attitude worries me - since when is it a crime to be rich?!? Just because someone has something that you don't, doesn't mean that you can help yourself to what they have either directly or indirectly.
I suspect a lot of people who are arguing that this is not copyright infringement are simply into self-denial. Basically, they like their free music and want to keep it.
I've heard the argument that they didn't get it free, they wouldn't have bought it in the first place and I will conceede that this argument has some merit.
However, I would argue that there is a significant amount of music which is traded which will never be bought as a result of entire albumns being available for downloads.
Truth is, a lot of those people already probably spend a bunch of their hard earned money on Metallica music already, not to mention t-shirts, concerts, and jimmy hats.
And I would say that there is a lot more that don't.
I have lived in a Uni hall of residence where MP3 trading was widespread and epidemic and I can assure you that people where downloading entire albums rather than buying. In fact the common overheard comment was, 'Who needs to buy CDs now when you can get them free off the Internet'.
I don't know what the solution is and I'm not offering one. Nor am I saying that what Metallica has done is right.
BUT, to defend the trafficing of MP3s using your arguments simply doesn't hold any water IMHO.
If I have legitamately bought Win2k and create a backup of it (in case my CD is damaged) and I place this backup on Napster (where it is publiclly accessible), i am pretty certain no law court is going to hesitate to determine that you are infringing copyright.
I'm no lawyer, but I think the crux of the matter is that you are allowing material to be traded in a public manner and that is where you would get in trouble.
Sure, you can login with a new user name - that's not going to be a problem. But Napster will have to delete your account and then recreate a new one. Multiply this by 335000 and it starts being a little bit of a hassle.
Multiply that number again when/if other bands join, and soon there will be significant load and administrative hassles for Napster.
Metallica's little trip is not aimed at the users IMHO, it is aimed at harassing Napster. The more work and trouble they can cause Napster the better.
Irrespective of whose 'side' you support, you have to admire the 'street smart' fighting of Metallica.
Basically, they have 'attacked' Napster using Napsters own policy, that is, they will eject any user who infringes copyright.
By submitting 335,000 names, Metallica has accomplised two things:
potentially scared users who thought they were anonymous
created an administrative hassle for Napster
No doubt Metallica can afford to keep the NetPD firm indefinitely fingering each Napster user and submitting their name to Napster. If this is the case, Napster is going to be bogged down removing accounts... and what if other artists join in... soon Napster will be perpetually creating and removing accounts at an alarming rate.
And on a secondary note, if Metallica wanted to directly sue copyright infringers, can the NetPD firm supply enough info to confirm the computer from which it came and hence could Metallica sue an individual based on monitored Napster use? If so, this would be incredibly damaging to the user base of Napster as I am pretty certain that many users would shy away if they thought there was the remotest possibility that they could be sued.
I think one of the biggest problems of online voting is that there will be a strong perception that it is too easy to alter the results.
With 'hard copy voting', you have to go to some effort to make a significant difference to an election - you'd have to rig many voting booths, have physical access to the boxes, probably buy off the officials and vote counters... etc
With online voting, you would only have to change a couple of numbers (assuming that you could hack past the security and get away undetected).
Unlikely that someone could hack past the security? Maybe, but there are enough stories in the media about stolen credit card numbers and hacked web sites for the general public to have a real fear about the security of online voting.
And to cast additional fear upon the populace, if it is 'easy' to hack the vote computer, it is even easier to change the whole result of the vote with a single click.
This may not be true in reality, but that is what the general public believe... and try convinving them otherwise.
Nope. While systems may be ready to handle online voting, the public is not.
I used to run (well I guess I still do) a Calvin & Hobbes fan site which I started way back in 1994. Back then, Universal Press Syndicate (the owners of the rights to Calvin & Hobbes) went on a campaign to close every C&H fan site on the web.
Basically the reason behind their actions was the same as Linus' - to protect their trademark, they had to take action against any possible infringment of their copyright/trademark.
In the end, Universal Press Syndicate stopped pursuing fan sites for a number of reasons that one can only speculate - but I have always suspected that one of them was that there was no way that they could close sites faster than they were appearing.
Having read Linus' explanation, I have two observations:
First, it's great that Linus has taken the time to explain the situation - Universal Press Syndicate merely shot threatening lawyer letters to webmasters.
Second, will Linus' attempt to defend his trademark ultimately prove futile as more and more sites/companies/people start using the word Linux - I'm assuming that there is a strong possibility that the illegitimate use of the trademark Linux will outstrip Linus' ability to control it.
Due to the absolute crap in this particular topic especially the AC further down who decided to reply ad nauseum to disrupt the layout of the page, I have set my theshold to +1. Initially I resisted coz I didn't want to miss the worthwhile AC posts (of which there are a few).
Now it's simply too much and I had no choice.
Having said that, I am absolutely loving the +1 threshold. I am seeing stupid posts disappearing off my screen leaving the good stuff behind at a rapid rate - I'm not going back to 0 threshold.
For those AC that want to make decent contributions to/. and still remain anonymous, my suggestion would be to setup a second account for just anonymous posting.
Slashdot Mirror
but I love it when i hear stories like this. Not just about how girls don't want to enter a technical career, but stories like the skills shortage, inability of IT businesses to find staff, lack of interest amongst school kids to pursue an IT tertiary education etc etc. It just means that the pay packets stay high in our industry ;-)
if your doctor's clinic folded, he could sell your patient info?
if a telco folded, could they sell your phone records?
if a bank collapsed, could they sell your financial transaction history?
if your ISP folded, could they sell your surfing habits?
With 'everything' being networked and everything talking to everything else in the near future is it conceivable that our advances (such as the optical switching) won't keep up with the growth in transmitted data?
Could it reach the point where we have communication restrictions (like water restrictions :-). eg only allowed to send emails on odd days, or no emails over 3k in size :P
If I left my parked car unlocked and someone hopped in and stole it - proceeded to drive down a freeway, had a accident and caused a major traffic pile-up where several people died, would I be responsible?
I would say no.
However, if you use the analogy that Smith used: if one were to leave a loaded gun laying about and if another person picked it up and killed someone with it, the owner of that gun would be held responsible for negligence
I would say yes.
So what is the difference? I don't know myself - I just thought I'd provoke some thinking amongst everyone and hopefully someone else who is thinking straight at the moment (it late at night here) can give some insight! :)
If they achieve the 10 Gb/cm capacity like they are forecasting, then finally I will be able to have the a (insert favourite MP3 player) that can hold a decent amount of MP3s
Let the masses have a play with the source - it can only make it better - better yet, GPL the weapons information :)
Therefore if you wanted, you could have Netscape/Opera etc etc as the integrated browser of choice. That I would think would do wonders for promoting competion and fostering innovation.
All those ping packets of x volts combined - boom!
While I can appreciate where you are coming from with this statement, most moderate to large sized businesses would havily use macros, template, and graphs. All those standard document templates customised for the business, those graphs portraying SLAs and metrics etc. This would be one of the key issues for compatability.
It was downgraded to Flamebait, but obviously other moderators have a sense of humour and don't take their Open Source to *fanatical* levels. Cool- nice to see the moderation system works :) (to my favour anyway :)
Oh well. :)
That way ...
*ducks back into the trenches having stirred up a hornets nest of stereotypes* :)
*ducks back into the trench for cover*
And think of all the other religions you could have ... .zeus, .thor ...
Well why don't we distribute full versions (with no restrictions) of all Linux games that currently exist and in the future using Napster.
That would grow the population of people who would play Linux games.
Oh wait, that would mean that the Linux developers wouldn't get any money for it which means they wouldn't develop the software ...
Hang on, how does this compare to the Metallica issue? What is the difference between trading mp3s and Linux games? You're not stealing cos the original copy is still there (just using one of the arguments from previous discussions). Is it okay to trade mp3s on Napster simply because Metallica is rich?
Would anyone disagree that distributing Linux games on Napster severly limit if not kill the Linux game market?
I'm interested to hear other peoples views on this ...
Actually the most toxic substance in Silicon Valley is all the caffienated beverages! Ahhhh, time for my caffiene injection ...
Yes I will agree with you on that point.
Metallica needs to get with the Internet age, as do the rest of the millionaires whining about their intellectual property being pirated."
This kind of attitude worries me - since when is it a crime to be rich?!? Just because someone has something that you don't, doesn't mean that you can help yourself to what they have either directly or indirectly.
I suspect a lot of people who are arguing that this is not copyright infringement are simply into self-denial. Basically, they like their free music and want to keep it.
I've heard the argument that they didn't get it free, they wouldn't have bought it in the first place and I will conceede that this argument has some merit.
However, I would argue that there is a significant amount of music which is traded which will never be bought as a result of entire albumns being available for downloads.
Truth is, a lot of those people already probably spend a bunch of their hard earned money on Metallica music already, not to mention t-shirts, concerts, and jimmy hats.
And I would say that there is a lot more that don't.
I have lived in a Uni hall of residence where MP3 trading was widespread and epidemic and I can assure you that people where downloading entire albums rather than buying. In fact the common overheard comment was, 'Who needs to buy CDs now when you can get them free off the Internet'.
I don't know what the solution is and I'm not offering one. Nor am I saying that what Metallica has done is right.
BUT, to defend the trafficing of MP3s using your arguments simply doesn't hold any water IMHO.
If I have legitamately bought Win2k and create a backup of it (in case my CD is damaged) and I place this backup on Napster (where it is publiclly accessible), i am pretty certain no law court is going to hesitate to determine that you are infringing copyright.
I'm no lawyer, but I think the crux of the matter is that you are allowing material to be traded in a public manner and that is where you would get in trouble.
Multiply that number again when/if other bands join, and soon there will be significant load and administrative hassles for Napster.
Metallica's little trip is not aimed at the users IMHO, it is aimed at harassing Napster. The more work and trouble they can cause Napster the better.
Basically, they have 'attacked' Napster using Napsters own policy, that is, they will eject any user who infringes copyright.
By submitting 335,000 names, Metallica has accomplised two things:
- potentially scared users who thought they were anonymous
- created an administrative hassle for Napster
No doubt Metallica can afford to keep the NetPD firm indefinitely fingering each Napster user and submitting their name to Napster. If this is the case, Napster is going to be bogged down removing accountsAnd on a secondary note, if Metallica wanted to directly sue copyright infringers, can the NetPD firm supply enough info to confirm the computer from which it came and hence could Metallica sue an individual based on monitored Napster use? If so, this would be incredibly damaging to the user base of Napster as I am pretty certain that many users would shy away if they thought there was the remotest possibility that they could be sued.
Just my 2c worth at midnight :)
With 'hard copy voting', you have to go to some effort to make a significant difference to an election - you'd have to rig many voting booths, have physical access to the boxes, probably buy off the officials and vote counters ... etc
With online voting, you would only have to change a couple of numbers (assuming that you could hack past the security and get away undetected).
Unlikely that someone could hack past the security? Maybe, but there are enough stories in the media about stolen credit card numbers and hacked web sites for the general public to have a real fear about the security of online voting.
And to cast additional fear upon the populace, if it is 'easy' to hack the vote computer, it is even easier to change the whole result of the vote with a single click.
This may not be true in reality, but that is what the general public believe ... and try convinving them otherwise.
Nope. While systems may be ready to handle online voting, the public is not.
Basically the reason behind their actions was the same as Linus' - to protect their trademark, they had to take action against any possible infringment of their copyright/trademark.
In the end, Universal Press Syndicate stopped pursuing fan sites for a number of reasons that one can only speculate - but I have always suspected that one of them was that there was no way that they could close sites faster than they were appearing.
Having read Linus' explanation, I have two observations:
Now it's simply too much and I had no choice.
Having said that, I am absolutely loving the +1 threshold. I am seeing stupid posts disappearing off my screen leaving the good stuff behind at a rapid rate - I'm not going back to 0 threshold.
For those AC that want to make decent contributions to /. and still remain anonymous, my suggestion would be to setup a second account for just anonymous posting.