AOL will never become the Microsoft of the internet. They got to where they are now by providing a user friendly experience over dialup connections. The vast majority of their customers are still dial-up too.
However, where they succeeded in dial-up, it is unlikely that will continue onward in broadband. Dial-up is a lot easier to run, there is relatively little infrastructure to maintain besides the back-end internet connection and the phone bank. Broadband is an entirely different ball game. Especially now that the FCC has ruled the telcos no longer have to share their DSL. The only major players in the near short term are going to be the cable companies and the telcos. Granted, AOL owns one of those cable companies but they have a lot more fiercer competitors, some who have a lot more experience in running those types of networks.
The only area that AOL can really differentiate itself from its competitors, is through its add-on 'community service'. But most households that opt for broadband are unlikely to want to pay extra for this service. People don't buy broadband so they can experience AOL at faster speeds. They get it for other uses like music, movies, etc.
I believe, cable is currently leading the pack over DSL, and AOL is lucky to be on that side of the fence. However I am not convinced that cable is the wave of the future. I don't believe the telcos are going to be pushed out of business lightly. They have a lot of congressional lobbying influence. When they get their act together and begin to offer residential fiber optic service in mass, at reasonable prices, the pendalum may swing back the other way. And for the users that don't need the extra speed of fiber optic, some generation of WiFi may take over. It's cheaper to run, no need to lay feed and just access points to maintain.
When the Internet becomes as pervasive as the telephone/cell phone,etc has now we will really start to see some great things out of it. Before that happens though, connection fees are going to have to be a lot cheaper than they currently are.
>3. All the firms who've picked up a stake so far in the Unix code patent have been American firms. This could be the beginning of some polarisation, where all important IP is within the US. This could have serious repercussions for firms like Fujitsu, Siemens etc. who aren't based in the US.
Or it will be the final breaking point that convinces the Europeans not to seek a patent system modelled after the Americans. Especially with regards to software patents.
Re:Forward your spam to the FTC
on
FTC vs Spammers
·
· Score: 1
The software that costs $109 *IS* the academic version of Visual Studio.Net. It is esentially VS.Net Pro, with a modifed license. When you buy the $109 academic version you are still not allowed to use it for non-commercial purposes, but Microsoft is giving away this software at the conferences instead of you paying $109.
If you want to use VS.Net for commercial purposes you have to buy the Professional edition which runs around a thousand dollars I think.
He is the Student Co-ordinator for Academic.Net. His name and email are on the business card that is given out to every single student that attends one of these conferences.
Right now, nobody can make money except the US government because it's very difficult.
It's called counterfeiting. It's not that hard for some people do in very small scales. i.e. Some high school kid who decides to forge a couple bills. But if you tried to do this on a large scale you will get caught.
But if it was electronic, then there would be times when security was breached, and massive amounts could be created. This would depreciate the value of money and throw our economy into a depression
There is just as much likelihood of this happening as someone managing to artifically inflate their bank account. If you allowed cards with massive limits on it, then yeah it would be a problem. But they would probably just put a limit like $100 on the cards, and it would become very similar to they way debit cards word. I don't think anyone would complain about $100 or $500 limits on these cards.. because who needs to carry around $1 million in cash?
"The lawsuits, filed against two students at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), and one each at Princeton University and Michigan Technological University, ratchet up the pressure that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) recently has been putting on universities to block campus file-trading. The trade group still has not filed suit against average file-swappers who use more common services such as Kazaa, however. "
Although it doesn't mention if these people were just operating hubs, or were perhaps actual employees of the University as well?
The recording industry has stepped up its campaign against campus music swapping, filing suit against four university students who operated file-search services on their school's internal networks.
The lawsuits, filed against two students at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), and one each at Princeton University and Michigan Technological University, ratchet up the pressure that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) recently has been putting on universities to block campus file-trading. The trade group still has not filed suit against average file-swappers who use more common services such as Kazaa, however.
"The people who run these (campus) networks know full well what they are doing--operating a sophisticated network designed to enable widespread music thievery," RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a statement. "The lawsuits we've filed represent an appropriate step given the seriousness of the offense."
University students have been widely viewed as the core of the various file-swapping networks ever since the appearance of Napster on the digital scene in late 1999. Universities have seen half or more of their network bandwidth used by people uploading and downloading songs, software and movies over the past few years.
Schools have attempted to crack down on the practice of file swapping in various ways, ranging from blocking network traffic associated with Napster or Kazaa to confiscating computers used to trade files. In a recent congressional hearing, some lawmakers called for criminal prosecutions for campus file-swappers.
In its lawsuits, the RIAA compares the use of the campus search software--variously called "Phynd," "Flatlan" or "Direct Connect"--to the defunct Napster service, dubbing the services "local area Napster networks." The particular technology in these lawsuits in fact represents something different than the file-swapping techniques used by Napster or Kazaa, however.
"Phynd" and the other pieces of software set up servers--often on ordinary dorm room PCs--that search all the computers connected to a campus network that have Windows file-sharing turned on. Unlike Napster or Kazaa, which helped create a network of computers that would not have existed otherwise, "Phynd" and the others search a network that already exists.
"Dan," a university student who runs a similar server but has not been sued, said the RIAA is missing critical differences in the file-sharing technologies. He asked that his full name and university not be used.
"With or without these services, people would be able to share these files," the student said. "It's Microsoft that's allowing people to share these files; we're just accessing public information."
That difference in technology may or may not have any effect in court, attorneys said.
"It does seem like all it's doing is indexing resources that are available on a network that people are already a part of," said Fred Von Lohmann, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital civil liberties group that has defended file-swapping companies in court against the RIAA. "It doesn't seem like there's anything wrong with building a tool to do that. And it doesn't seem like there's anything wrong with running that tool."
Where the students could run into shadier legal territory is when those indexes and search results come back loaded with MP3 files, Lohmann said. According to the RIAA lawsuits, several of the students also maintained archives of hundreds of songs on their own machines.
All four civil suits were filed in federal court near the universities.
is an icon of an old single unit Macintosh computer with a smiley face showing on the screen. But why take my word for it when a picture is worth a thousand words
The only great value they provide to the market now is big Unix boxen for running large databases. Sun servers are non existant in the low-end, and Linux and Windows will continue to eat up the mid-range server markets for years to come. The high-end backend database servers for running big databases where you need 64 bit computing are the only areas where Linux and Windows have still to hit. Eventually however Intel 64 bit computing will catch up. Then the only thing left will be the super high-end, where mainframes still rule. And that market is much too small to support a company as big as Sun currently is.
But the devil ends up being in the details. While it probably would not be too hard to design a vehicle that could do this in a couples day or so, 250 miles in 10 hours means the vehicle would have to be averageing 25 mph. At 25 mph, there is not a whole lot of room for error. You would need a system that could react to environmental issues that came up very quickly such as obstacles, or dead end routes. You would also need to a system that could actually sense/see far enough ahead to steer the vehicle in the correct direction without running into things.
Should they happen to devise a method of checking the shuttle while in orbit for defect, what would happen should they find a defect on a shuttle in space? Do they have the ability to fix defects while in space?
And lastly, how many people can the Soyuz capsules handle? If the shuttle could not handle a landing they might have to orphan it in space and send up multiple Soyuz capsules, or a second shuttle?
This is what I was able to capture..
on
The Tyranny of Email
·
· Score: 2, Informative
When Email Goes Bad
I'm not going to list all the reasons email is good. You know them already,
I assume you are an avid email user. (Anyone reading this is online, and just
about anyone who goes online uses email.) I'm also not going to tell you email
is evil, because it isn't.The negativeproductivity impact of email
comes from the way you use it, not the medium itself.
There are two ways email impairs your productivity:
It breaks your concentration.
It misleads you into inefficient problem solving.
Let's take the concentration impact first. I'm a software engineer, and
programming requires extended periods of concentration. Actually this isn't
unique to programming, a lot of fields require that you concentrate. (Probably
just about everything worth doing requires some concentration!)
{ I maintain that programming cannot be done in less than three-hour
windows. It takes three hours to spin up to speed, gather your concentration,
shift into "right brain mode", and really focus on a problem. Effective
programmers organize their day to have at least one three-hour window, and hopefully
two or three. (This is why good programmers often work late at night.
They don't get interrupted as much...) }
One of the key attributes of email is that it queues
messages. Unlike face-to-faceconversation and 'phone calls,
people can communicate via email without both paying attention at the same
time. You pick the moments at which you pay attention to email.
But many people leave their email client running continuously. This is the
biggest baddest reason why email hurts your productivity. If you leave your
email client running, it means anyone anytime can interrupt what you're doing.
Essentially they pick the moments at which you pay attention.
(Even somerandom spammer who is sending you a crappy ad for a get-rich
scheme.) This is bad.
There are three stages to this badness. Stage one is configuring your email
client to present alerts when you receive an email. Don't do this. Stage
two is configuring your email client to make noise when you receive an email.
Don't do this. Stage three is running your email client all the time.
Don't do this, either. To be effective, you must pick the moments at which
you're going to receive email. I know this goes against common
wisdom. Just about everyone I know runs their client all the time, has it
configured to make noise, and may even have it present alerts when an email is
received. Don't do it.
Spam is the best kind of email to get, because you look at it quickly, see that
it's spam, and delete it. Then you get back to work. Personal email is
the second best kind of email to get, because you either respond quickly("Hi
Jane, great hearing from you. See you at the club tonight.") or set it aside
for later. Task-oriented work email is the worst kind of email to get. It
often requires thought, and because it is work there is some immediacy to it.
But as soon as you take the time to respond, you've interrupted yourself.
You've shifted back to "left brain mode", and you've lost the thread of your
concentration.
This doesn't mean you shouldn't respond to emails promptly. Check email
whenever you're interrupted anyway - before you start work, after a meeting, after
lunch, before you go home, etc. Set aside time to do this. Just don't let
others dictate the timing.
Has this ever happened to you?
[ In the hallway at work... ] O: "Hi R, how's it going?"
R: "Great, how are you?" O: "Good. Hey, did you see my email
about the framitz?" R: "No, I haven't checked my email yet today,
sorry." O: "WHAT!"
It has happened to me. Sometimes I can't believe it - I sent the email at
9:30, and here it is 11:30, and they haven't checked their email? What are they
doing? They're being efficient, that's what. They're picking their
moment to be interrupted, and that's a good thing. We'll revisit this theme
again below in the Three Hour Rule. For now, here's the takeaway:
Turn your email client off.
You should pick the moment at which you'll be interrupted.
Okay, now let's look at the second productivity-sapping attribute of email, that
it misleads you into inefficient problem solving. Email is a communication
medium. You send messages to others, you receive messages from others.
Some of these messages are mere data transmission - FYIs so you know what's going
on. Some are "noise" - 'thank you's, 'I got it's, jokes, etc. And some -
many - are problem solving. You hear about a problem, and you respond with a
possible solution, or a possible approach, or more questions. Nothing wrong so
far - email is a good medium for problem solving. And it is so easy - you get
an email, you think (sometimes), and you respond. Poof, you're done.
Except when you're not. Because there are some kinds of problems which don't
get solved in email, ever. And as soon as you have that kind of problem, you
have to stop, immediately, before you make the problem worse.
First, never, ever, criticize someone in email. For reasons
which I have never fully grasped, any negative emotion is always amplified by
communication through email. Sometimes you intend to be critical - someone has
done something dumb, or said something silly, or emailed something ridiculous.
Resist the urge to reply. Sometimes you don't mean to be critical - you're just
making an observation, or engaging in technical debate, or adding facts to a
discussion. But as soon as you sense that the recipient has taken your email as
criticism, you must immediately switch media - a face-to-face meeting is best, but a
'phone call is also okay.
Second, don't get into prolonged technical debates in
email. I've seen threads lasting weeks with a whole series of kibitzers, with
everyone restating their points of view and nothing getting settled. Often
email has the effect of polarizing the debate, and the combatants end up further
apart in their views then when the debate began. As soon as you sense this
happening, you must immediately switch media. A meeting with the core people
involved in best, but a conference call is also okay.
Both of these kinds of problems which don't get solved in email are exacerbated by
copying others. The bigger the audience, the worse things get. As bad as
it is to be critical in email, it is far worse if ten colleagues are copied.
Often the presence of an email audience is what makes for the polarization of
technical debates - if the core people were the only onesinvolved, they would
be less virulent and more willing to acknowledge other points of view and seek
compromise. Okay, so here's the takeaway:
Never criticize anyone in email, and avoid technical
debates. Use face-to-face meetings or 'phone calls instead.
Before I go on to talking about productivity in general, let me share
someother thoughts about email. First, be judicious in who you send
email to, and who you copy on emails. Every email recipient is going to
lose a little time reading each email you send. Simple emails which say
"thanks" or "got it" or "see you at the meeting" are polite and part of normal human
communication. But there is a limit, no need to reply "you're welcome", or
"glad you got it", or "great, I'll see you, too". In my career I've run large
teams, and sometimes people in those teams copied me on virtually every email they
sent. Maybe they wanted me to know what was going on, or maybe they were
letting me know what a great job they were doing. Either way, they were taking
my time with stuff I didn't need to spend time on. I have a high capacity for
skimming email, but there is always the feeling that they didn't get it; like "why
did they copy me on this?" There should be a purpose to every addressee on each
email. It is okay to drop recipients from a reply - in fact, it is good; less
people are involved, and [to reiterate the point] the bigger the audience, the more
any implied criticism or debate will be exacerbated.
{ I have to digress for a pet peeve. I send an email to S, and S replies,
copying eight other people. I reply back to S alone. S replies, again
copying eight other people. This is bad. If I'm smart I will abandon
email and continue the conversation with Sface-to-face or over the
'phone. If I'm not smart I'll flame S so badly his hair catches fire, copying
everyone, and regret it later. }
Second, email is a very relaxed medium, but observing some formality is
important. Use an email client which spell checks. Use normal
capitalization. Use correct grammar - complete sentences make email easier to
read just like everything else. Don't use weird background colors and strange
fonts. Don't append pictures of your dog. You get the picture...
I've received emails from senior people which bordered on illiterate, with incorrect
capitalization, grammar, incomplete sentences, etc. The impression is not
positive.
Third, email can be immediate, but don't hesitate to review and revise
important emails. In many companies email has all but replaced paper
memos. In many business situations email has replaced letters. When
writing an email which has a wide distribution, or which affects a negotiation, or
possible deal, or potential sale, take the time to write a draft, and reread it
later. You can almost always improve the wording, make a point more concisely,
or other otherwise improve the communication.
Finally, remember thatemail is a public and permanent record.
Email is plain text and goes out over public networks, and is often stored on servers
for a long time and may be backed up for a longer time. It might feel
"throwaway" at the time, but it will not be thrown away, as senior executives at
Microsoft, Enron, Worldcom, and others have discovered. If you have something
to say which won't bear the public light of day, it shouldn't be said in email.
And if you are sending something confidential or sensitive, consider sending it as an
encrypted and/or password-protected attachment.
Okay, enough about email. Here's the six rules for avoiding email tyranny:
Turn your email client off. Pick the moment at which
you'll be interrupted.
Never criticize anyone in email, and avoid technical
debates. Use face-to-face meetings or 'phone calls instead.
Be judicious in who you send email to, and who you copy on
emails.
Observing some formality is important.
Don't hesitate to review and revise important emails.
Remember that email is a public and permanent record.
Got it? Cool. Thinking about email productivity led me to make some
comments about productivity in general...
The Three Hour Rule
Programming is a right-brain activity. It is very conceptual and spatial and
[gasp!] artistic. Effective programming requires that you transition from your
body's normal "left brain" mode into a "right brain" zone. As I mentioned
above, programming cannot be done in less than three-hour windows.
Really. And in talking to friends in other fields, I'm convinced this applies
to many other lines of work.
When you're in a three-hour zone, you've spun up to speed, gathered your
concentration, shifted into "right brain mode", and are focusing on a problem.
You're being productive. There are four things which can interrupt you, and you
have to watch out for all of them:
Receiving email or 'phone calls.
Personal contact with colleagues.
Meetings.
Warp-offs.
Let's talk about each of these... First, emails or 'phone calls. Email
we've talked about, this one is easy - just turn your email client off.
Done. Mostpeople receive far less 'phone calls than emails, so calls
aren't nearly as much of a problem. The solution is the same - put your phone
in "do not disturb" mode. Nowadays most everyone has a cell 'phone, leave that
on, and if there is a genuine emergency your significant other or doctor or whomever
will reach you there. Most calls to your desk are colleagues or customers;
these are important, but as with email, you should pick the time to take
them.
Second, there is personal contact with colleagues. Most companies these days
can't afford for everyone to have a private office, so it is pretty easy to get
interrupted. (If you have an office, close the door!) Distractions
include ambient noise, questions ("Hey, do you know how to invoke a framitz?"), and
other interruptions ("Hey, you want to play foosball?"). These are really
important (especially foosball), but they are interruptions, and they will mess up
your three-hour window. Basically you want to isolate yourself from your
colleagues, just like with email and 'phone calls. To deal with ambient noise,
get yourself some really good headphones and play music. Cordless, if you
want. For $100 you will have the
best-sounding music you can imagine, and a sure-fire way to eliminate background
noise.
{ The "office vs. cubicle" debaterages and has not been settled. Some companies
give every engineer their own office, and claim the productivity improvement is worth
the cost. Others feel the atmosphere is better in a cubicle farm, and the
interaction between engineers leads to better problem solving. Without taking a
stand in this debate, the fact is that most engineers work in cubicles, and have
little control over this. So it is what it is - you have to make the best of
it.
In 2000 I joined PayPal, a dot-com with an egalitarian work environment
where everyone had a cubicle, even the CEO. After many years of enjoying
a private office, I was back in a cube. I quickly found two things to be
essential, first, I positioned my desk and computer so I was not distracted by
traffic (away from the cube opening), and second, I bought a great pair of cordless
headphones. With these adaptations I was able to work just as productively as I
had in an office. (Of course I used conference rooms for
meetings.) }
Dealing with
questions and interruptions from colleagues is more difficult. The
give-and-take between engineers in a team is important; often one person will have
the answer to another's dilemma. There is also the social aspect, it is
enjoyable to interact with your colleagues. However, you need to have those
three-hour windows. I recommend a simple sign you can hang on your cube: "I'm
in a zone", "Do not disturb", etc. (This is a chance to be creative...)
Essentially you want your colleagues to know you're zoning. If they have a
technical question which can wait, they can put it in email, or wait until you
emerge. If they need immediate attention ("hey, you want to play foosball?") at
least they know you were in a zone, and that they're interrupting you.
Third, meetings... Ah yes. An entire book can be written about
meetings, and many have. Let me make a few comments
about meetings and then leave it. Meetings interrupt everyone who attends,
obviously, so they
(I will post the rest when I can..)
While this may work in the short term, in the long run it's a policy that would fail. By preventing overseas companies from selling their products here the US forces them to look for other markets. As everyone else in the world continues along in this process, those markets outside the US will develop to the point where the US market is no longer somewhere where a company *needs* to sell to be globally successful.
If it comes to that point, the US will be forced to overhaul its patent system and open up its markets in order to keep raising it's standard of living. Of course in reality, things like this never seem to follow the theory completely, so no one really has any idea what would actually happen.
then they have a good chance of succeeding in this market. It will be interesting to see how much this service in particular differentiates from their consumer offering. If they let organizations run their own server for handling this, or if they just slap a new interface on the consumer version and add a few features for more security .
We are one step closer..
on
Going Cyberpunk
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
to The Matrix:)
Seriously though , as science gets better and better at capturing our thoughts and dreams the applications for such technology are limitless. Imagine playing a video game that could adapt to your thoughts.
"Grand Theft Auto 10: Drive any type of car you can think of."
Slashdot Mirror
AOL will never become the Microsoft of the internet. They got to where they are now by providing a user friendly experience over dialup connections. The vast majority of their customers are still dial-up too.
However, where they succeeded in dial-up, it is unlikely that will continue onward in broadband. Dial-up is a lot easier to run, there is relatively little infrastructure to maintain besides the back-end internet connection and the phone bank. Broadband is an entirely different ball game. Especially now that the FCC has ruled the telcos no longer have to share their DSL. The only major players in the near short term are going to be the cable companies and the telcos. Granted, AOL owns one of those cable companies but they have a lot more fiercer competitors, some who have a lot more experience in running those types of networks.
The only area that AOL can really differentiate itself from its competitors, is through its add-on 'community service'. But most households that opt for broadband are unlikely to want to pay extra for this service. People don't buy broadband so they can experience AOL at faster speeds. They get it for other uses like music, movies, etc.
I believe, cable is currently leading the pack over DSL, and AOL is lucky to be on that side of the fence. However I am not convinced that cable is the wave of the future. I don't believe the telcos are going to be pushed out of business lightly. They have a lot of congressional lobbying influence. When they get their act together and begin to offer residential fiber optic service in mass, at reasonable prices, the pendalum may swing back the other way. And for the users that don't need the extra speed of fiber optic, some generation of WiFi may take over. It's cheaper to run, no need to lay feed and just access points to maintain.
When the Internet becomes as pervasive as the telephone/cell phone,etc has now we will really start to see some great things out of it. Before that happens though, connection fees are going to have to be a lot cheaper than they currently are.
There would be enormous consumer uproar, and the DOJ would come after AOL for anti-trust violations.
>3. All the firms who've picked up a stake so far in the Unix code patent have been American firms. This could be the beginning of some polarisation, where all important IP is within the US. This could have serious repercussions for firms like Fujitsu, Siemens etc. who aren't based in the US.
Or it will be the final breaking point that convinces the Europeans not to seek a patent system modelled after the Americans. Especially with regards to software patents.
You should have tried abuse@real.com
The software that costs $109 *IS* the academic version of Visual Studio.Net. It is esentially VS.Net Pro, with a modifed license. When you buy the $109 academic version you are still not allowed to use it for non-commercial purposes, but Microsoft is giving away this software at the conferences instead of you paying $109.
If you want to use VS.Net for commercial purposes you have to buy the Professional edition which runs around a thousand dollars I think.
He is the Student Co-ordinator for Academic .Net. His name and email are on the business card that is given out to every single student that attends one of these conferences.
Right now, nobody can make money except the US government because it's very difficult.
It's called counterfeiting. It's not that hard for some people do in very small scales. i.e. Some high school kid who decides to forge a couple bills. But if you tried to do this on a large scale you will get caught.
But if it was electronic, then there would be times when security was breached, and massive amounts could be created. This would depreciate the value of money and throw our economy into a depression
There is just as much likelihood of this happening as someone managing to artifically inflate their bank account. If you allowed cards with massive limits on it, then yeah it would be a problem. But they would probably just put a limit like $100 on the cards, and it would become very similar to they way debit cards word. I don't think anyone would complain about $100 or $500 limits on these cards.. because who needs to carry around $1 million in cash?
Although it doesn't mention if these people were just operating hubs, or were perhaps actual employees of the University as well?
The recording industry has stepped up its campaign against campus music swapping, filing suit against four university students who operated file-search services on their school's internal networks.
The lawsuits, filed against two students at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), and one each at Princeton University and Michigan Technological University, ratchet up the pressure that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) recently has been putting on universities to block campus file-trading. The trade group still has not filed suit against average file-swappers who use more common services such as Kazaa, however.
"The people who run these (campus) networks know full well what they are doing--operating a sophisticated network designed to enable widespread music thievery," RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a statement. "The lawsuits we've filed represent an appropriate step given the seriousness of the offense."
University students have been widely viewed as the core of the various file-swapping networks ever since the appearance of Napster on the digital scene in late 1999. Universities have seen half or more of their network bandwidth used by people uploading and downloading songs, software and movies over the past few years.
Schools have attempted to crack down on the practice of file swapping in various ways, ranging from blocking network traffic associated with Napster or Kazaa to confiscating computers used to trade files. In a recent congressional hearing, some lawmakers called for criminal prosecutions for campus file-swappers.
In its lawsuits, the RIAA compares the use of the campus search software--variously called "Phynd," "Flatlan" or "Direct Connect"--to the defunct Napster service, dubbing the services "local area Napster networks." The particular technology in these lawsuits in fact represents something different than the file-swapping techniques used by Napster or Kazaa, however.
"Phynd" and the other pieces of software set up servers--often on ordinary dorm room PCs--that search all the computers connected to a campus network that have Windows file-sharing turned on. Unlike Napster or Kazaa, which helped create a network of computers that would not have existed otherwise, "Phynd" and the others search a network that already exists.
"Dan," a university student who runs a similar server but has not been sued, said the RIAA is missing critical differences in the file-sharing technologies. He asked that his full name and university not be used.
"With or without these services, people would be able to share these files," the student said. "It's Microsoft that's allowing people to share these files; we're just accessing public information."
That difference in technology may or may not have any effect in court, attorneys said.
"It does seem like all it's doing is indexing resources that are available on a network that people are already a part of," said Fred Von Lohmann, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital civil liberties group that has defended file-swapping companies in court against the RIAA. "It doesn't seem like there's anything wrong with building a tool to do that. And it doesn't seem like there's anything wrong with running that tool."
Where the students could run into shadier legal territory is when those indexes and search results come back loaded with MP3 files, Lohmann said. According to the RIAA lawsuits, several of the students also maintained archives of hundreds of songs on their own machines.
All four civil suits were filed in federal court near the universities.
is an icon of an old single unit Macintosh computer with a smiley face showing on the screen. But why take my word for it when a picture is worth a thousand words
See this slashdot article. Check the 3rd question.
The only great value they provide to the market now is big Unix boxen for running large databases. Sun servers are non existant in the low-end, and Linux and Windows will continue to eat up the mid-range server markets for years to come. The high-end backend database servers for running big databases where you need 64 bit computing are the only areas where Linux and Windows have still to hit. Eventually however Intel 64 bit computing will catch up. Then the only thing left will be the super high-end, where mainframes still rule. And that market is much too small to support a company as big as Sun currently is.
Don't they promise to support products for a given amount of years for some enterprise customers? What will happen in these cases?
Without the defence department's initial backing, the internet would probably not exist in it's current form today.
But the devil ends up being in the details. While it probably would not be too hard to design a vehicle that could do this in a couples day or so, 250 miles in 10 hours means the vehicle would have to be averageing 25 mph. At 25 mph, there is not a whole lot of room for error. You would need a system that could react to environmental issues that came up very quickly such as obstacles, or dead end routes. You would also need to a system that could actually sense/see far enough ahead to steer the vehicle in the correct direction without running into things.
Did any else misread that headline and think it was going to be a product review of Rational's ClearCase software products?
Should they happen to devise a method of checking the shuttle while in orbit for defect, what would happen should they find a defect on a shuttle in space? Do they have the ability to fix defects while in space?
And lastly, how many people can the Soyuz capsules handle? If the shuttle could not handle a landing they might have to orphan it in space and send up multiple Soyuz capsules, or a second shuttle?
When Email Goes Bad
I'm not going to list all the reasons email is good. You know them already, I assume you are an avid email user. (Anyone reading this is online, and just about anyone who goes online uses email.) I'm also not going to tell you email is evil, because it isn't.The negativeproductivity impact of email comes from the way you use it, not the medium itself.
There are two ways email impairs your productivity:
Let's take the concentration impact first. I'm a software engineer, and programming requires extended periods of concentration. Actually this isn't unique to programming, a lot of fields require that you concentrate. (Probably just about everything worth doing requires some concentration!)
One of the key attributes of email is that it queues messages. Unlike face-to-faceconversation and 'phone calls, people can communicate via email without both paying attention at the same time. You pick the moments at which you pay attention to email. But many people leave their email client running continuously. This is the biggest baddest reason why email hurts your productivity. If you leave your email client running, it means anyone anytime can interrupt what you're doing. Essentially they pick the moments at which you pay attention. (Even somerandom spammer who is sending you a crappy ad for a get-rich scheme.) This is bad.
There are three stages to this badness. Stage one is configuring your email client to present alerts when you receive an email. Don't do this. Stage two is configuring your email client to make noise when you receive an email. Don't do this. Stage three is running your email client all the time. Don't do this, either. To be effective, you must pick the moments at which you're going to receive email. I know this goes against common wisdom. Just about everyone I know runs their client all the time, has it configured to make noise, and may even have it present alerts when an email is received. Don't do it.
Spam is the best kind of email to get, because you look at it quickly, see that it's spam, and delete it. Then you get back to work. Personal email is the second best kind of email to get, because you either respond quickly("Hi Jane, great hearing from you. See you at the club tonight.") or set it aside for later. Task-oriented work email is the worst kind of email to get. It often requires thought, and because it is work there is some immediacy to it. But as soon as you take the time to respond, you've interrupted yourself. You've shifted back to "left brain mode", and you've lost the thread of your concentration.
This doesn't mean you shouldn't respond to emails promptly. Check email whenever you're interrupted anyway - before you start work, after a meeting, after lunch, before you go home, etc. Set aside time to do this. Just don't let others dictate the timing.
Has this ever happened to you?
It has happened to me. Sometimes I can't believe it - I sent the email at 9:30, and here it is 11:30, and they haven't checked their email? What are they doing? They're being efficient, that's what. They're picking their moment to be interrupted, and that's a good thing. We'll revisit this theme again below in the Three Hour Rule. For now, here's the takeaway:
Okay, now let's look at the second productivity-sapping attribute of email, that it misleads you into inefficient problem solving. Email is a communication medium. You send messages to others, you receive messages from others. Some of these messages are mere data transmission - FYIs so you know what's going on. Some are "noise" - 'thank you's, 'I got it's, jokes, etc. And some - many - are problem solving. You hear about a problem, and you respond with a possible solution, or a possible approach, or more questions. Nothing wrong so far - email is a good medium for problem solving. And it is so easy - you get an email, you think (sometimes), and you respond. Poof, you're done.
Except when you're not. Because there are some kinds of problems which don't get solved in email, ever. And as soon as you have that kind of problem, you have to stop, immediately, before you make the problem worse.
First, never, ever, criticize someone in email. For reasons which I have never fully grasped, any negative emotion is always amplified by communication through email. Sometimes you intend to be critical - someone has done something dumb, or said something silly, or emailed something ridiculous. Resist the urge to reply. Sometimes you don't mean to be critical - you're just making an observation, or engaging in technical debate, or adding facts to a discussion. But as soon as you sense that the recipient has taken your email as criticism, you must immediately switch media - a face-to-face meeting is best, but a 'phone call is also okay.
Second, don't get into prolonged technical debates in email. I've seen threads lasting weeks with a whole series of kibitzers, with everyone restating their points of view and nothing getting settled. Often email has the effect of polarizing the debate, and the combatants end up further apart in their views then when the debate began. As soon as you sense this happening, you must immediately switch media. A meeting with the core people involved in best, but a conference call is also okay.
Both of these kinds of problems which don't get solved in email are exacerbated by copying others. The bigger the audience, the worse things get. As bad as it is to be critical in email, it is far worse if ten colleagues are copied. Often the presence of an email audience is what makes for the polarization of technical debates - if the core people were the only onesinvolved, they would be less virulent and more willing to acknowledge other points of view and seek compromise. Okay, so here's the takeaway:
Before I go on to talking about productivity in general, let me share someother thoughts about email. First, be judicious in who you send email to, and who you copy on emails. Every email recipient is going to lose a little time reading each email you send. Simple emails which say "thanks" or "got it" or "see you at the meeting" are polite and part of normal human communication. But there is a limit, no need to reply "you're welcome", or "glad you got it", or "great, I'll see you, too". In my career I've run large teams, and sometimes people in those teams copied me on virtually every email they sent. Maybe they wanted me to know what was going on, or maybe they were letting me know what a great job they were doing. Either way, they were taking my time with stuff I didn't need to spend time on. I have a high capacity for skimming email, but there is always the feeling that they didn't get it; like "why did they copy me on this?" There should be a purpose to every addressee on each email. It is okay to drop recipients from a reply - in fact, it is good; less people are involved, and [to reiterate the point] the bigger the audience, the more any implied criticism or debate will be exacerbated.
Second, email is a very relaxed medium, but observing some formality is important. Use an email client which spell checks. Use normal capitalization. Use correct grammar - complete sentences make email easier to read just like everything else. Don't use weird background colors and strange fonts. Don't append pictures of your dog. You get the picture... I've received emails from senior people which bordered on illiterate, with incorrect capitalization, grammar, incomplete sentences, etc. The impression is not positive.
Third, email can be immediate, but don't hesitate to review and revise important emails. In many companies email has all but replaced paper memos. In many business situations email has replaced letters. When writing an email which has a wide distribution, or which affects a negotiation, or possible deal, or potential sale, take the time to write a draft, and reread it later. You can almost always improve the wording, make a point more concisely, or other otherwise improve the communication.
Finally, remember that email is a public and permanent record. Email is plain text and goes out over public networks, and is often stored on servers for a long time and may be backed up for a longer time. It might feel "throwaway" at the time, but it will not be thrown away, as senior executives at Microsoft, Enron, Worldcom, and others have discovered. If you have something to say which won't bear the public light of day, it shouldn't be said in email. And if you are sending something confidential or sensitive, consider sending it as an encrypted and/or password-protected attachment.
Okay, enough about email. Here's the six rules for avoiding email tyranny :
Got it? Cool. Thinking about email productivity led me to make some comments about productivity in general...
Programming is a right-brain activity. It is very conceptual and spatial and [gasp!] artistic. Effective programming requires that you transition from your body's normal "left brain" mode into a "right brain" zone. As I mentioned above, programming cannot be done in less than three-hour windows. Really. And in talking to friends in other fields, I'm convinced this applies to many other lines of work.
When you're in a three-hour zone, you've spun up to speed, gathered your concentration, shifted into "right brain mode", and are focusing on a problem. You're being productive. There are four things which can interrupt you, and you have to watch out for all of them:
Let's talk about each of these... First, emails or 'phone calls. Email we've talked about, this one is easy - just turn your email client off. Done. Mostpeople receive far less 'phone calls than emails, so calls aren't nearly as much of a problem. The solution is the same - put your phone in "do not disturb" mode. Nowadays most everyone has a cell 'phone, leave that on, and if there is a genuine emergency your significant other or doctor or whomever will reach you there. Most calls to your desk are colleagues or customers; these are important, but as with email, you should pick the time to take them.
Second, there is personal contact with colleagues. Most companies these days can't afford for everyone to have a private office, so it is pretty easy to get interrupted. (If you have an office, close the door!) Distractions include ambient noise, questions ("Hey, do you know how to invoke a framitz?"), and other interruptions ("Hey, you want to play foosball?"). These are really important (especially foosball), but they are interruptions, and they will mess up your three-hour window. Basically you want to isolate yourself from your colleagues, just like with email and 'phone calls. To deal with ambient noise, get yourself some really good headphones and play music. Cordless, if you want. For $100 you will have the best-sounding music you can imagine, and a sure-fire way to eliminate background noise.
Dealing with questions and interruptions from colleagues is more difficult. The give-and-take between engineers in a team is important; often one person will have the answer to another's dilemma. There is also the social aspect, it is enjoyable to interact with your colleagues. However, you need to have those three-hour windows. I recommend a simple sign you can hang on your cube: "I'm in a zone", "Do not disturb", etc. (This is a chance to be creative...) Essentially you want your colleagues to know you're zoning. If they have a technical question which can wait, they can put it in email, or wait until you emerge. If they need immediate attention ("hey, you want to play foosball?") at least they know you were in a zone, and that they're interrupting you.
Third, meetings... Ah yes. An entire book can be written about meetings, and many have. Let me make a few comments about meetings and then leave it. Meetings interrupt everyone who attends, obviously, so they
(I will post the rest when I can..)
Still going strong after all these years, in some form or another.
While this may work in the short term, in the long run it's a policy that would fail. By preventing overseas companies from selling their products here the US forces them to look for other markets. As everyone else in the world continues along in this process, those markets outside the US will develop to the point where the US market is no longer somewhere where a company *needs* to sell to be globally successful.
If it comes to that point, the US will be forced to overhaul its patent system and open up its markets in order to keep raising it's standard of living. Of course in reality, things like this never seem to follow the theory completely, so no one really has any idea what would actually happen.
then they have a good chance of succeeding in this market. It will be interesting to see how much this service in particular differentiates from their consumer offering. If they let organizations run their own server for handling this, or if they just slap a new interface on the consumer version and add a few features for more security .
The home page is still up and running. But that's about it. The rest of the links off the page all return 404.
Biology to make mini machines
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2003/ denver_2003/2765077.stm
to The Matrix :)
Seriously though , as science gets better and better at capturing our thoughts and dreams the applications for such technology are limitless. Imagine playing a video game that could adapt to your thoughts.
"Grand Theft Auto 10: Drive any type of car you can think of."