Please lay off the "M$" thing. It's juvenile. it doesn't help your argument. It's silly to attack a corporation for making money -- it's why they exist. If you need a substitute, use "MSFT" or something.
protecting existing companies and ensuring that they don't falter like WorldCom and Enron is essential
This is wrong on several levels. Companies like Worldcom and Enron should falter, and the government should do nothing to help them. Soviet-style economies are known for propping up decreipt corporations rather than letting them fail -- it's letting them fail that helps ensure competition and free markets. Propping up an otherwise doomed company may make things better for some people in the short term, but it's disasterous long-term.
I don't see how Peru adopting Free Software for government use is going to put Microsoft out of business. My thinking is, it will make essentially no difference at all to the profitability for Microsoft. How much Microsoft Product does the Peruvian government pay for on an annual basis now?
Verisign is not "a good company." It is, other than one particular tow-truck company, the worst company I have ever done business with, or had to deal with in any other way. Over that last six years, I have never had what I would call a good experience with them. Each and every one has been annoying, agonizing, and more time-consuming than necessary.
I don't care what your internal view of the company was like. From the outside -- which is what counts to us consumers -- Verisign and Network "Solutions" suck. There is no two ways about it.
This sounds like a nice drive to use in TiVo-type units as well, so that the read head can return data as the r/w head updates the media, rather than flopping the only head back and forth.
First off, as others have said, relax, Mr. Fox Photographer.
This has to be one of the greatest/. stretches of belief of all time.
No, it's pretty typical for slashdot. You really ought to have known that about slashdot posters.;^)
Well, do you know of a nation that DOES NOT DO THAT?
He was referring to the Gilmore v. Ashcroft lawsuit. Please click here [slashdot.org]. There are many people who haven't been keeping up with slashdot articles. Too many people post without reading the stories. Please become current before you post.
I am a news photographer for FOX. My best friend at work went to Afghanistan. They could go wherever they pleased IN A WAR ZONE.
The issue isn't US gov't control of media companies. The issue is that the gov't and media companies (MPAA, RIAA, and Microsoft) are trying to control information flow of individual users on the internet through legislation.
Once upon a time, there was the DMCA. This didn't go far enough so congress, the content providers and Microsoft created the CTPBDA and Palladium. These initiatives require changes made to hardware to protect content from broad piracy through the internet.
But those initiatives will affect more than simple piracy, though. Things are happening that are threatening free speech on the net.
As long as the internet exists in its present form and with current computer technology, it undermines any government's attempt to control information to the general public. This is important to US foreign policy in places like, say, China.
Currently, the Chinese government is playing whack-a-mole on the internet cafe's. In those cafe's, the users are pretty much in control of the information they choose to receive. The police, even in China, only have so many resources, and as some have been shut down, many more have popped up.
If DRM initiatives become the law of the land forcing all electronic devices to implement DRM, and we export those technologies to China, then China would potentially have an absolute lock on the information going to it's citizens. If that web browser isn't signed with the Official Chinese Department of Information's digital key, than it's not going to run on the Palladium architecture, now will it?
But here's the real kicker. If we don't export the DRM technologies to China, then Communist Red China's citizens would have greater liberty to access information than US citizens.
So the question of the day is, do we as a nation implement DRM to protect movie studios profits, or do we encourage the internet to be a medium for social and political change?
Oh wait, and it doesn't stop there. Remember COINTELPRO? Ashcroft has removed the rules that were put in place to prevent the FBI from abusing it's power. The FBI can open a file on you having a GREENPEACE bumper sticker [securityfocus.com].
And then Congress wants ISP's to hold email for 90 days [theregister.co.uk] -- of course, the terrorists will have long moved away from email, and use FedEX, USPS, Airborne Express, UPS, or one of the many other shipping companies to send their instructions, or packet radio, or newspaper ads, or drop boxes... And even if they do use e-mail there's also things such as one-time use hotmail addresses, one-time pads (which are provably unbreakable), IPSec, VPNs, pgp (or gpg), 802.11b networks, and anonymous remailers. Just remember, this law won't affect the terrorists, only you and me.
So, tell me again how the US is not regulating information flow and communications?
Sure. I have no problem not running servers on my residential connection. I agreed not to, and they have valid business reasons for asking us not to. They don't put technological means in place to prevent it -- such as NATting their entire RR customer base, which allows people to play games, etc.
And, Time Warner will let me run a server -- if I buy a "business class" connection. I will add that the business-class RR connection, which allows servers, is still a lot cheaper than other bandwidth alternatives.
Since when does broadband -- or any other product -- need legal justification to exist? Certain products may be restricted due to public-safety concerns (things like guns, radioactive compounds, etc.), but none require "legal justification" to exist, to be created, to be sold, etc.
You ask what's wrong with the ACLU. They start from the premise that we live in a free country and have rights and freedoms.
What's wrong with you? You're assume that the government must provide sanction to citizens for them do do something -- in this case, sell and buy broadband internet connectivity. That's backwards. Citizens give sanction to government. At least, in free societies, they do.
It really sounds like you want to shove people down to slower, less useful connections so that your connection is more useful to you, and you're not shy about using the government to that end.
Maybe on of the primary markets for PeekaBooty won't be China, but the U.S. Reagan denounced the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire" because of a number of things. They stopped travellers and demanded to see ID/papers/etc. The U.S. is doing that now. They controlled information flow and communications. The U.S. is doing that now.
On a more positive note, I think I saw a recent article about Time Warner saying they would not be limiting or regulating use of RoadRunner. Let's hope.
Exactly. Adboce, for instance, will keep shipping their ugly Motif-baed Reader, in the absence of a standard. With Windows, there's a standard. With Apple, there's a standard. There can be deviation, and even themability, but they know that if they code in certain way, it will fit in with the rest of the system in a harmonious manner. Preferences are all stored the same way, etc.
With Unix, it's "whatever you want to do," and not much matches. If Adobe could code for Gnome/Gtk/GConf, for instance, it would fit in well with the rest of the gnome desktop, which Sun and HP will be shipping soon. As it is, do they choose Motif? Gtk? Qt? FLTK? Eh? And if they choose an alternate toolkit, how do they query the perferences for the "native" desktop? At least on Window and Mac, they can make their MDI widgets look Windowsy and Macy because they know what's expected, and can look up preferences in an standard way.
Well, I guess OutLook, Word and Excel won't be on the "whitelist," if they want to avoid macro viruses.
Macro viruses are not binaries, after all. and won't be signed or verified by the program loader or hardware. They're program data, not program code, from the point of view of the OS.
TCP has to send back replies ("ACK"s, or acknowledgements) for each of the packets it receives, so that the sender knows if it needs to retransmit a packet. This is part of how transfer control is achieved by the protocol. So, if there's less space for ACKs going upstream, then the tcp traffic in the other direction can get slowed down.
Slashdot Mirror
Not selling, or threatening to not sell, products specifically to hurt a competitor.
Announding products that do not exist, and never do exist.
They buy competitors and potential competitors simply to shut them down.
They steal.
The put artificial barriers into place in their products.
Please lay off the "M$" thing. It's juvenile. it doesn't help your argument. It's silly to attack a corporation for making money -- it's why they exist. If you need a substitute, use "MSFT" or something.
protecting existing companies and ensuring that they don't falter like WorldCom and Enron is essential
This is wrong on several levels. Companies like Worldcom and Enron should falter, and the government should do nothing to help them. Soviet-style economies are known for propping up decreipt corporations rather than letting them fail -- it's letting them fail that helps ensure competition and free markets. Propping up an otherwise doomed company may make things better for some people in the short term, but it's disasterous long-term.
I don't see how Peru adopting Free Software for government use is going to put Microsoft out of business. My thinking is, it will make essentially no difference at all to the profitability for Microsoft. How much Microsoft Product does the Peruvian government pay for on an annual basis now?
The world's leading computer manufacturers (Dell, HP, Compaq, etc.) ship Microsoft-based systems.
They still can, and will, if Peru adopts an open-source mandate.
If you cut out Microsoft from *consideration*, you cut out huge areas of the US service industry.
Why should Peru make that a primary consideration? Or any consideration at all?
Let free trade and market forces determine which technology to choose, not some ideology.
As was pointed out in the article, Microsoft doesn't respect free trade or market forces.
Are their Linux IT companies to help the Peruvian government manage their systems? Yes. Are they chances good they'll be around in six months?
Yep. "IBM"
How is that possibly true? And what kind of behavior is it supposed to excuse?
UltraEdit32 is great.
Verisign is not "a good company." It is, other than one particular tow-truck company, the worst company I have ever done business with, or had to deal with in any other way. Over that last six years, I have never had what I would call a good experience with them. Each and every one has been annoying, agonizing, and more time-consuming than necessary.
I don't care what your internal view of the company was like. From the outside -- which is what counts to us consumers -- Verisign and Network "Solutions" suck. There is no two ways about it.
I'll just refer back to
my original comment
Microsoft and the Apache Foundation will be working together on a fuel cell?
Microsoft will be teaming up with Apache to port Apache's httpd to DirectX?
What? Something about "IIS out, Apache in?"
Rotor?
Eh? (tap tap) Is this thing on?
Uhhh, once you have control of the web server, can't you write outside of DocumentRoot if you choose?
This sounds like a nice drive to use in TiVo-type units as well, so that the read head can return data as the r/w head updates the media, rather than flopping the only head back and forth.
Dear enraged person, please click here.
Thank you.
Yeah, so are sooo right. The US today is just like cold-war USSR.
I never said that.
Sure. I have no problem not running servers on my residential connection. I agreed not to, and they have valid business reasons for asking us not to. They don't put technological means in place to prevent it -- such as NATting their entire RR customer base, which allows people to play games, etc.
And, Time Warner will let me run a server -- if I buy a "business class" connection. I will add that the business-class RR connection, which allows servers, is still a lot cheaper than other bandwidth alternatives.
They are actually very reasonable about it.
Since when does broadband -- or any other product -- need legal justification to exist? Certain products may be restricted due to public-safety concerns (things like guns, radioactive compounds, etc.), but none require "legal justification" to exist, to be created, to be sold, etc.
You ask what's wrong with the ACLU. They start from the premise that we live in a free country and have rights and freedoms.
What's wrong with you? You're assume that the government must provide sanction to citizens for them do do something -- in this case, sell and buy broadband internet connectivity. That's backwards. Citizens give sanction to government. At least, in free societies, they do.
It really sounds like you want to shove people down to slower, less useful connections so that your connection is more useful to you, and you're not shy about using the government to that end.
Maybe on of the primary markets for PeekaBooty won't be China, but the U.S. Reagan denounced the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire" because of a number of things. They stopped travellers and demanded to see ID/papers/etc. The U.S. is doing that now. They controlled information flow and communications. The U.S. is doing that now.
On a more positive note, I think I saw a recent article about Time Warner saying they would not be limiting or regulating use of RoadRunner. Let's hope.
Really. Maybe if he'd released a few new versions in the last couple of years...
Exactly. Adboce, for instance, will keep shipping their ugly Motif-baed Reader, in the absence of a standard. With Windows, there's a standard. With Apple, there's a standard. There can be deviation, and even themability, but they know that if they code in certain way, it will fit in with the rest of the system in a harmonious manner. Preferences are all stored the same way, etc.
With Unix, it's "whatever you want to do," and not much matches. If Adobe could code for Gnome/Gtk/GConf, for instance, it would fit in well with the rest of the gnome desktop, which Sun and HP will be shipping soon. As it is, do they choose Motif? Gtk? Qt? FLTK? Eh? And if they choose an alternate toolkit, how do they query the perferences for the "native" desktop? At least on Window and Mac, they can make their MDI widgets look Windowsy and Macy because they know what's expected, and can look up preferences in an standard way.
Well, I guess OutLook, Word and Excel won't be on the "whitelist," if they want to avoid macro viruses.
Macro viruses are not binaries, after all. and won't be signed or verified by the program loader or hardware. They're program data, not program code, from the point of view of the OS.
Microsoft's corporate network was compromised, and its source code repositories touched, by a hacker in the recent past.
Windowsupdate.microsoft.com fell to Code Red.
Exactly. We *know* that Microsoft's source code has been compromised by 'hackers.' It was in the news!
But, oh yeah, it's the verifiable open-source code we have to worry about -- that's the dangerous stuff!
TCP has to send back replies ("ACK"s, or acknowledgements) for each of the packets it receives, so that the sender knows if it needs to retransmit a packet. This is part of how transfer control is achieved by the protocol. So, if there's less space for ACKs going upstream, then the tcp traffic in the other direction can get slowed down.
I could just put legs on an Xserve, and use it as my desk. "Desktop? Yes, the whole thing."