There's another important point that I haven't seen anyone mention: There's an important difference between exploitable design flaws and exploitable implementation flaws. When implementation flaws are exploited, those flaws can usually be fixed without removing essential functionality upon which legitimate users may have come to depend. When design flaws are exploited, the design must be changed to correct those flaws, and to do this, is often necessary to frustrate the legitimate expectations of real customers.
I've seen a number of people repeat the naive argument that when there are more Linux users, we will have the same problems with viruses that Windows users have. This argument only makes sense if we ignore MicroSoft's irresponsibility in the design of their software. MicroSoft has knowingly and repeatedly committed to designs that are fundamentally flawed. These design flaws include things like adding powerful, general purpose programming languages and macro languages for applications like word processors, and then adding automatic processing of these files in Mail User Agents. Keep in mind that during the '80s, MicroSoft, along with the rest of the computer industry, faced repeated hoaxes of email viruses, and had to offer again and again to customers the explanation that email could not carry viruses because it did not carry executable content. When MicroSoft made the decision to add automatic handling of executable content to their email systems, they could not have been ignorant of the fact that easy proliferation of viruses would be a consequence of their decision.
MicroSoft has generally been reluctant to fix the design flaws in their software, because they are committed to some level of backward compatibility. Of course, responsible designs, up front, might have made this commitment less problematic. The result has been a florishing industry for anti-virus software. We now go to third party vendors to make up for the poor quality of MicroSoft software and for their unwillingness to take responsibility for their own mistakes.
My experience with widely used Linux software is that the stuff that becomes popular is usually designed much more thoughtfully that is typical of MicroSoft's products. Serious security design flaws are denounced quickly, and perhaps more rudely than is really required. While the vetting process for Linux based software is far from perfect, it has clearly been much more successful than MicroSoft's persistent irresponsibility. I regularly follow email lists about security flaws in Unix/Linux systems, and the vast majority of those flaws are implementation flaws rather than design flaws. The flaws for Linux in particular are quickly address, and patches are released. While I'm aware of virus scanners that run on Unix and Linux systems, to me they seem focussed on scanning email and files for Windows viruses. There are Unix and Linux based because Unix/Linux machines are often file servers and email gateways for Windows systems, and not because there is any problem with viruses that attack Unix/Linux systems.
Finally, Linux developers have not been required to cover for their perjury in the courts and have not been nearly so tempted to violate that maxim of software development that every Computer Science student learns in school: Software should be modular. It should be divided into separate modules, where each module does its job. The interfaces between modules should be clean and simple. Applications should not ever be integrated into the core of operating system. A consequence of rational design in the Unix/Linux world is that software upgrades are far less problematic. I routinely tell my Linux systems to go grab all the relevent updates at SuSE's web site and apply them automatically, and while I have face occasional, minor problems, I have never once had a serious problem with any such update. Every Windows administrator knows that each new update carries with it a substantial risk of rendering his systems inoperab
This article seems like one of the worse excuses for journalism I've seen in some time. The author writes:
Competitors will always whine and cry about how the price-cutting, product-improving, and customer-satisfying practices of their more successful rivals are "unfair." This in fact is the modus operandi of antitrust: The antitrust laws provide a means by which sour-grapes competitors can achieve through politics what they fail to achieve in the marketplace.
This is a dreadfully dishonest characterization of anti-trust laws. Microsoft wasn't accused of success through fair competition. They were accused of a series of dirty tricks that have nothing to do with competing on a level playing field. These tricks include giving their customers discounts if those customers would design their own web sites so that non-MS browsers wouldn't work with them, and pushing PC makers into deals where they had to pay for MS licences, even for machines that were to be loaded with non-MS operating systems.
Neither economists nor politicians nor policy wonks are capable of deciding the most "efficient" size or configuration of any business enterprise. As Ludwig von Mises once explained, "The question to be decided is: Who should determine the size of the enterprises, the consumers by their striving to buy what suits them best or the politicians who know only how to tax away and to spend?"
This is a strawman argument. Anti-trust laws aren't designed to limit the size or market share of companies; The are designed to limit companies from using monopolies or near-monopolies unfairly to exclude competition. As such, they are only targetted at companies that actually have monopolies or near monopolies. But I supposed it's easier for the unscrupulous to simply make up non-sense positions for their adversaries and to claim that their adversaries hold those non-sense positions than it is to argue against the positions their adversaries actually take.
By adhering to this false "maxim" antitrust regulators are attempting to supersede the informed judgment of millions of consumers
Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that most consumers are informed enough to exercise informed judgement, those consumers can only use there judgement to decide among the choices they actually have. If I offer an OS at the same price as MS's and if customers can choose which one to purchase, customers can make a simple judgement about the qualities of the OSs. But if MS has strong-armed vendors into making my customers pay for MS-Windows in addition to my OS for any machine they buy, even if my OS is the only one loaded, then the consumer's choice isn't just about OS qualities, anymore.
Third, the government is clearly unconcerned about consumer welfare in its prosecution of Microsoft: In Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's November 1999 "Statement of Fact" he devoted a mere five out of 412 paragraphs to the issue of consumer welfare.
This is just plain stupid. The point of Judge Jackson's "Findings of Fact" document was to describe the facts of the case, and not to concentrate on the social consequences of the facts. And in any case, the proper focus of a Judge is on the law and on the facts of a case. The author of this article is either showing his ignorance or his dishonesty.
He rests his case on the lame notion that, in his opinion, the company's management had "anticompetitive motives." Economic analysis may not be Mr. Litan's strong point, but mind-reading apparently is. He claims that such a malevolent "intent" has harmed Microsoft's competitor Netscape by keeping it from competing in the Web browser market. In fact, Netscape has distributed more than 150 million copies of its browser since 1995.
The author completely misses the point, and we are left to wonder if he did more than skim the "Findings of Fact" document. MS used the browse
I notice under the "Related Links" section, it says, "Best deals: Your Rights Online". Is this where our government has been selling off our civil rights for the last decade or so?
Plus, the 9th has the most cases reviewed by the Supreme Court. They're rogues alright. But they make hard decisions, and generally are in favor of keeping the government the hell out of people's business.
Except when it comes to 2nd Amendment Law, where they look for clever ways of strip people of their constitutional rights.
The remark about "trusting sponsored 'research'" misses the point. Real scientists use good methodology to help them keep their bias from influencing the outcome of research. The problem which often comes up in research that is funded to prove a point is that the methodology is bad, and anyone with a good science background should be pointing out that methodology is what matters.
Of course there is some chance that researchers who are out to prove a specific position might fabricate data, but I don't think this is the biggest part of the problem surrounding biased research.
Bias and reputation of the researchers and sponsors are grounds for suspicion; But, to really impeach a study, you must either demonstrate that the methodology is bad or that the data are fabricated. Science is not a popularity contest.
The article does talk about the problems with the methods used in the study, but the SlashDot quote referencing the article seems to be about the fact that the research is "sponsored" by a bad company. In science, it takes more than that to show a study to be unsound.
Because most people have absolutely no clue what science is about or how to think analytically.
Worse yet, most people think that agreement is properly thought of as an act of loyalty and dissent is properly thought of as an act of disloyalty.
With such a perverted sense of reasoning, surely we should expect nothing else.
An alternate version will soon be announced that will provide even greater privacy through subvocalization. To make this work, the user will have to stick the thumb of his other hand in his mouth. Look for the official annoucement in 1st Quarter 2004.
What's really troubling about all this
is that Dell is selling you a system, collecting
your money, and then trying to change the terms
of the deal after the deal has been closed.
They are not telling you about the restrictions
in the licence terms before you pay your money
and commit to the deal.
You open the box and you find that Dell
intended to give you less than they told
you about, up front.
THIS IS FRAUD!
No honorable person can do this to his
customers.
How can we escape the conclusion that there
are no honorable people in charge at Dell?
I don't understand why we, as a culture,
don't treat these dishonorable people like
the criminals that they are.
I have, in the past, had a problem that might be the same. I've always called it "burn-out" and I've gone through it at least three times, in my career, so I've had to try to understand it and learn to cope with it.
I'm not sure the problem you are describing
is the same as the one I've come to understand,
but it may be helpful for me to describe
what I think it might be.
For brevity, I will assume for the rest of this
reply that it is the same.
The problem, fundamentally, has to do with
way we think about extremely complex issues.
We build up a great deal of context about the
issues in our minds, and that context has to
stay there, at the edge of our consciousness,
so that we can consider the implications,
in that context, of the many ideas that
occur to us while we are still thinking about
the issue of interest.
When we are interrupted,
during that kind of thinking,
we loose some or all of that context
and have to start building it up again.
This process of building up and holding that
context is not entirely conscious, and is not,
therefore, entirely under conscious control.
If your subconscious has learned to expect
interruptions, it will be preparing to shift
to a new subject, rather than helping you
build up and maintain context for the problem
you really want to explore.
It's worth noting, I think, that after midnight,
many of us are subject to fewer interruptions.
If you have learned to expect fewer interruptions
after midnight, then problems that result from
the anticipation of being interrupted will be
much easier to avoid.
This may be why you can get things done in the
wee hours of the morning.
It may help if you can find a good hiding place.
If you can learn that hiding helps keep
interruptions away, your subconscious may be
better at helping you build up and maintain the
context you need for more complex problems.
Another thing that may help is to separate the
tasks into those that require deep thinking,
and those that don't.
Take care of the tasks that don't require deep
thinking when you can't control
the interruptions.
Also, if you think this model of the problem
might be close to what you are facing, I would
advise you to be a least a little patient with
it.
You may have to go hide somewhere and live with
the fact that the first few times you try it,
it may not work.
You may have to actually experience the lack of
interruptions you face while hiding a few times,
before your subconscious stops preparing for the
next interruption and starts helping you deal
with context, again.
No matter what people say about it,
analysis is heavily dependent on intuition.
It is much more of a social skill than most
people realize.
To analize well, your mind requires a certain
amount of freedom to drift.
You don't have to fight your mind every time it
starts to drift, from the very start.
If you must employ discipline, do so carefully.
Set a timer to beep at you once every 5 or 10
minutes, and use that timer to remind yourself
to come back to the problem.
Don't stifle your thinking with over-control.
Think about how you would explain
the subject matter to other people.
"When you can no longer buy computers without
Windows, you have lost the most basic right of a
consumer - the ability to choose what product you
spend your money on."
I would argue differently: When you can no
longer buy computers without Windows, the market
for computers without Windows is too
small/unprofitable for a company to take
advantage of. I love it when people say,
"Microshit is junk/sucks/etc." I always respond
that Microsoft must
be doing something right, because 90%+ of desktop
computers around the world run Windows. There's a
obviously a *market* for Windows software
and with 90%+ of market penetration, I'd say that
Windows is excellent (there's not many products
and industries with marketshare like that).
Nonsense. MicroSoft has been engaged in conduct
that violates anti-trust laws, and much of their
financial success is based on their predatory
conduct, not on the merits of their products.
To me (and apparently to the author of this topic
article) paying money to MicroSoft is like
supporting organized crime.
I'm not going to admire organized crime for its
financial success and conceed that it "must be
doing something right," even if I am trapped into
having to deal with them, somehow.
When MicroSoft plays fair (or at least plays
legal) and makes a big profit, I'll be impressed.
As long as they continue their criminal
conspiracy to violate antitrust laws, I'm going
to continue to feel soiled every time I'm touched
in any way by their lousy software.
Many so-called democracies are really
oligarchies for sale to the highest corporate
bidder.
In the case of the US, this is utter nonsense.
If money can be said to buy votes, and therefore
buy power, who, exactly, is selling
these votes.
Why do we allow ourselves, as voters, to be
manupulated so easily by expensive political
advertising.
When we view these messages skeptically and
critically, the messages will begin to reflect
the intelligence we bring to bear on them.
Whe we vote for polititians that act on sound
principles rather than pandering to our own
special interests, we will get polititians
that don't pander to special interests.
In any case, I am sure we will continue to get
the governement we deserve.
Perhaps, someday, we will try to deserve
something better.
But it's foolish to think that our problem is a
failure in democracy rather than a failure in
the voting population.
Granted, this point had to be made, and I don't
begrudge you the karma points you'll get from it,
because you've stated a common misconception
about as well as it can be stated.
In effect, you are arguing that, because the
content provider intended that the content viewer
be exposed to advertising in a particular way,
the content viewer becomes obligated to allow
himself to be exposed to advertising in the
intended manner.
I can only imagine this obligation results from
some notion of a contract between the
content provider and the content viewer.
The problem is that even an implied contract can
only arise from a common understand of what things
each has the right to expect from the other.
There no reason to suppose that either side has
any particular right to expect something from
the other side.
There's not normally any negotiation of terms
between a content provider and content viewer
prior to the viewer's attempt to fetch content.
And there's no reason to think that there is a
common social expectation that content viewers
must simply accept any manipulations the
advertisers choose to employ.
No amount of wishful thinking on the part of
the scum sucking bastards who have levelled
these slanderous accusations of theft is
a substitute for such social expectation.
In fact, if either side can be said to have
knowingly thwarted the expectations of the other party, surely it is that subset of content
providers that stoop to pop-up and pop-under
adds.
Before there where pop-up and pop-under adds,
there were banner adds, and such.
These adds were simply embedded in the pages
that content viewers retrieved, and viewers
were free to ignore them.
I think we all know that pop-up and pop-under
adds are a response to the fear that most
viewers, if left to their own devices, will
ignore adds.
Pop-up and pop-under adds are an attempt to force
the user to do something specific to dispose of
the adds.
There is no need to take such a step to manipulate
a content viewer that wants to look at the adds.
These pop-up and pop-under adds are a knowing
attempt by content providers to usurp control of
content viewer's equipment to do something that
the content provider must know the content
viewer doesn't want.
Again, if the content viewer wanted to look at
the adds, there would be no need to take such
a step.
In the Internet world, in general, we all have
to give other systems on the internet some
ability to influence our systems, else we wouldn't
be able to communicate with each other at all.
Simply putting our systems on the internet and
providing a means for other systems to influence
our system does not amount to a blank check for
other internet users to use our systems for
whatever they want.
At the same time, the mere fact that I don't
want someone to manipulate my system in a
particular way is not, in itself, a prohibition
against using it that way;
The limits one how I want my system used must
be stated explicitly, must be clear from the
facts of the situation, or must be very commonly
agreed upon in our culture to have any meaning.
When I ask for a resource from a web server,
nothing about that request implies that I want
my system to be manipulated into opening
a window that I have to dispose of separately
just to show me an advertisement.
Nothing about my request can be construed as
an agreement to cooperate with the advertising
technique.
When a content provider uses a manipulative
technique to confront me with an advertisement,
and when that technique appears to serve no
purpose but to confront with advertisements,
those people who would, left to themselves,
ignore advertisements,
surely it is the content provider who is
knowingly defying the expectations of the other
party (me).
Surely it is this content provider who is
knowingly manipulating the content viewer's
machine in a way that the provider must know
is contrary to the intentions of the
machine's owner.
Some content providers have, I believe, levelled
a baseless and slanderous charge of theft
against some content viewers.
This charge is dishonorable.
Further, I say that no honorable person could use
pop-up or pop-under adds.
An advertiser who uses such adds does not respect
his customers, and a consumer who encounters such
an add should recognize it as a sign of
disrespect from the advertiser.
Surely we, as consumers, should avoid doing
business with companies that are so blatent
in expressing their disrespect for their
potential customers.
When an advertiser is so self-involved
and so contemptuous of his potential customers
that he would stoop to pop-up or pop-under adds,
and then fling a baseless charge of theft against
those who employ a technical means to avoid
suffering from the tools of these disrespectful
manipulations,
surely that advertiser
is a dreadful sort of human being.
Surely such a poor excuse for a human being
deserves only contempt and ridicule.
Surely the company who employs such a person
would do well to fire him or at least never
allow him to speak for the company again.
Surely such a company owes us an appology for
this scoundrel's slander, and if they do not
offer us an appology, surely we would be better
off not doing business with such a company.
First, let me say that I do not want to discourage
you from posting these opinions about developing
on various platforms.
But I must say, I am surprised to hear what seems
to be an experienced developer who has used both
platforms express a preferences for Windows.
I hope you will read and reply to this message,
and that perhaps I can learn something from your
response.
You began with a brief note about your
credentials, so I will follow suit.
I have been getting paid to write code for about
23 years, now, and have used a variety of systems
and languages.
I've hand assembled code for a 6502 based single
board system, and entered it via a hex key pad;
I've written assembly code for MicroSoft Assembler under DOS; for the IBM 360/370 family and run it
under MVT, CMS; for the Motorola 6800, 68000, 6805, and 6811 families, and for the Intel 8080,
and 8048 families.
I've written code in PL/I, Fortran, BASIC,
IBM EXEC, EXEC2, REXX,
various Unix shells, PERL, AWK, C, TCL/Expect,
and Java, amoung other languages.
I love programming and learning new systems,
so what I am used to will never keep me from
giving other languages and platforms a chance.
I have to admit that while I have done some
substantial programming under MS-DOS, I have
never done any substantial coding under Windows.
While I understand why many normal users like
MS-Windows and the user interface it presents,
I am rarely asked to do the sort of mundane,
ordinary user type work that Windows is designed
to facilitate.
I get mostly requests to do unusual things.
I have often been required to use MicroSoft
tools for a number of reasons, but I must
say that I have not had a single experience with
any of that appalling company's software that was
not frustrating and unpleasant.
I really hate having things hidden
from me.
GUI's are nice, I suppose, but I will never be
happy with a GUI over a command line interface
and flat text configuration files unless that
GUI lets me do everything that I can do
with the CLI and flat text config files.
I find that such a GUI is extremely rare.
I really hate hand holdy documentation, because
it is almost always incomplete, and I really
hate it when documentation says things that are
not exactly correct, and I routinely
face these problems with MS products.
I don't have the words to describe how frustrating
it has been for me to design my application to
use MicroSoft's API as they are incorrectly
documented, and then have to change my designed
in the middle of a project to deal with how the
API's really work.
Unix, on the other hand, seems like a dream operating system for a programmer.
(I'm using "Unix" to refer
to all Unix-like systems.)
If you forget, for a moment, this naive tendency
that some recent Open Source Programmers have to
use HOWTO's and "info" files as a substitute for
"man" pages (they are fine in addition to "man"
pages), Unix documentation is online, generally
exact, and fairly complete.
Most things are designed to be out in the open
and easily understood by the programmer.
The tools that are provided with a Unix System
are designed to be versatile, because the
programmers that created Unix knew that they
couldn't anticipate everything that their users
(other programmers) will want to do with
their system.
I realize that Windows has a number of GUI
building tools that make it easy for people to
create applications without having to know how
to write a lot of code,
but it seems like these tools do little to tell
the programmer exactly what is going on at a low
level with the resulting applications.
Am I to trust MicroSoft to make sure the
applications that results from my efforts with
such a GUI will be secure?
Also, how can a really serious programmer be
happy with having all the details of what is
going on hidden from him (or her)?
Finally, I have done quite a bit of teaching
about programming,
and I must say that I am concerned about the
effect that MS-Windows seems to have on
programmers that use it as their development
platform.
I really think programmers are better off learning
from the very beginning that it is important to
understand, in very fundamental terms, exactly
what is going on in the applications they create.
To me, the very notion that one can get by without
understanding their application in pretty exact
terms is antithetical to good programming.
The boundaries between the application and the
operating system must be reasonably simple
and must be clearly and exactly specified
in documentation that comes bundled with the
operating system.
Getting a new programmer used to the idea that
the operating system is a mystery that he is
simply not supposed to try to understand is
terribly counter-productive.
When a program or an operating system has
a memory leak, the leak should be fixed;
Training users to reboot the system to fix
problems sets a terrible example for programmers.
When I first learned to write code, and when I
found that my program didn't do what I expected,
I had to learn that my own mistakes were the
most frequent source of problems.
Programmers that first learn to program under
MS-Windows don't have the benefit of an OS that
is stable enough and conforms well enough to
its documentation to teach them this essential
lesson, and as a result, I find that programmers
that come from a MicroSoft background are much
more likely than programmers from a Unix
background to start off blaming the operating
system rather than looking in their own code
for the source of their problems.
Of course, programmers are individuals, and make
their own decisions about what lessons to take
from the platforms they use, but the example that
the operating system sets is one of the things
that influences the decisions that programmers
make, in this regard.
So my question is this:
What is it, exactly, that makes Windows a better
platform for development?
Yes, but the original poster of this silly idea
was talking about re-marking what was probably a
compass card, and since the whole card will be rotated by the changing magnetic field, if
"N" and "S" are switched, "E" and "W" must also
be switched.
Actually, its MUCH more complicated than that.
This case really is about "unreasonable search
and siesure", but the fact that it touches
on the first amendment bring a higher standard
for justifying the search into play.
It touches on the first amendement basically
because it appears that the governement seeks
to strengthen its case based on the kind of
information that a defendant sought to aquire
through purchasing books.
Any attempt by government to suggest guilt
because someone chose to seek information about
a controversial subject really does have a
chilling effect on free speech.
Note that this case is not about hiding someone's
fraudulent use of a credit card in buying a book,
or about proving that a suspect was at a bookstore
at the time the purchase occurred.
This is about the government suggesting that the
suspect's choice of the book implies a stronger
case for the suspect's guilt.
The decision DID NOT say the search
warrant must have been invalid.
The decision was, for the most part,
narrowly directed at the fact
that the procedure that resulted in the
warrant was "Ex Parte", or one sided.
Ex Parte proceedings that result in search
warrants are often justified on the theory
that a suspect might destroy or arrange to
destroy evidence if he is warned that there
is a judicial proceeding planned during which
he can argue against the issue of the warrant.
In other words, the government has, in cases
where the proposed warrant would be served
on a suspect, a compelling interest
in surprising the suspect with the warrant.
In this case, the warrant, in question, would
be served on an innocent third party, where
there was no reason on record to suppose that
this third party might attempt to destroy
evidence if warned that the government sought
to compel it to give up the evidence.
The higher court found that the plantif (the
book store) has a reasonable chance of winning
their case,
that the lower court wasn't quite applying
the right test for suitability of warrant
application,
and that there was no justification for the
ex parte nature of the proceeding that produced
the warrant.
The higher court set the lower court's decision
aside and told it to try again.
This is not the end of the case.
I also agree with an earlier poster -- for the Windows platform, the Terminal Services client is *FAR* superior to VNC -- of course it is -- VNC works by sending bitmaps across the pipe -- the terminal services client can send API calls -- same principle as behind Xwindows.
Nonsense!! With Palm VNC I can take over my desktop with my Kyocera Smartphone.
Can you give me a Windows Terminal services
client that runs on a palm pilot?
There are VNC clients and servers for a large
variety of platforms.
What do you think are the chances that MS will
permit interoperability with Linux (which they've
called THE major threat to Windows) or
with PalmOS (the major competitor to WinCE)?
Window Terminal Services are only far
superior if you've already been assimilated.
Even if I am sitting in front of a Windows
machine, a Terminal Services client won't help
me take over one of my Linux boxes.
Terminal Services is mostly just good for locking
me into Windows.
No thanks.
I've always thought it's funny you don't get to accept or decline the EULA until AFTER you plunk down your money for it...
Actually, this is exactly why ELUAs
are not usually binding.
When you pick up the box, take it to the counter,
and pay your money, you have completed a contract.
The vendor cannot unilaterally change the terms
of that contract by surprising you with a piece
of paper with additional terms on the inside.
Actually, the notion of the ELUAs as they
are typically attempted by MicroSoft and
such are disturbing to me beyond their
mere illegality.
The idea of ambushing the buyer with additional
terms on the contract after the user has already
paid for the product is morally repugnant.
MicroSoft (along with other vendors) appear to
believe that ELUAs should have some force of law,
even if the courts know better.
If ELUAs were legally binding, wouldn't this
ambush tactic be a kind of fraud?
How can anyone with a personal sense of honor or
any kind of sense of ethics at all perpetrate
such a fraud?
The very notion of an ELUA hidden from the buyer
at the time of purchase with terms as draconian
as we keep hearing about from MS speaks volumns
of the moral degeneracy that must be rampant
at MicroSoft.
I would resign from a company before I ever
allowed myself to be a party to such a fraud,
and I don't understand why the people involved
with packaging products and creating these
ELUAs at MS don't do this simply to preserve
their own integrity.
I'm sure MicroSoft would claim that values
like integrity, morality, honesty, and honor
are very important at their company, but how
can we reconcile such a theory with these ELUAs?
IANAL, but still I will go out on a limb and
suggest that you cannot create a patentable idea
by taking prior art and declaring, "Hey, maybe
someone could make this low cost."
Actually, during the Vietnam conflict, the F-4
used a force feedback type system to make up for
the fact that the hydraulics would otherwise keep
the pilot from getting any feedback about
aerodynamic forces on the flight control
surfaces. This annoyed some pilots and was
sometimes disabled, but the feature was,
at least, present.
I don't know exactly when it was
put in place, but I know it was present, at least,
during Vietnam.
Some aircraft vibrate the stick or the
yoke to warn the pilot that the aircraft is
close to stalling.
Again, I don't know when this practice started,
but I don't think it's a new idea.
There may be other elements to the patent that
aren't expressed well in the press release, but
the idea of force feedback is not, in itself,
novel.
Since Vietnam was about 30 years ago, it's
difficult to imagine that an idea that was in
use in the real world that long ago can be the
basis for a current patent claim.
Neither will reach the president's desk until
both houses of Congress pass the same bill with
the same text.
Passing two different versions is just a matter
of posturing.
Each house would be showing that it has the
consensus it needs to pass its own version.
In this case, as I understand it, the House of
Representatives was considering passing the
Senate version.
If the House wants to make even a single change
to the bill, the Senate would then have to
vote again and pass the House's ammended version.
If the two houses need to actually negotiate
a common bill, this is usually done in a
conference committee (including members of both
houses).
A conference committee can devise a specific
wording of the bill that they think both houses
will accept, and they recommend that wording to
both houses;
But, even then, the bottom line is
that both houses must pass the bill with the
same wording before it goes to the President's
desk.
Perhaps if the Taliban Militia had not spent
all their time thumbing their noses at
international law and the international community,
they might be considered a legitimate government,
and this argument of yours might have some chance
of legitimacy, itself.
A band of fanatical thugs that murders
anyone who disagrees with them and proclaims
itself to be a government does not have the
same standing to demand proof that a legitimate
government might.
Further, even if the Taliban were a legitimate
government, sponsoring and protecting a group
of psychopaths that routinely conduct attacks
on another country is an obvious provocation to
war, and all this talk of extradition procedures
is simply a distraction.
We are not filing papers on the Taliban in some
world court, we are conducting a war against
them.
The Paks wanted to offer the Taliban a chance
to distance themselves from the terrorists, and
in recognition of public sentiment within
Pakistan and of Pakistan's intended help
to our war efforts, we went along and gave the
Taliban a last chance.
This is not about extradition;
This is about trying to be sensitive to the
political realities that our allies face.
Treating this like an extradition request would
lend legitimacy to the Taliban's claims that
they are a government.
It would be more correct to consider them
co-conspirators that have refused to give up
their accomplices.
They had a chance to make a deal with the
procecutor, and they blew it.
Now they are paying the price.
Frankly, I doubt this claim. Can you substantiate it?
Certainly, in the sense of giving you quotes from various sources, such as the well respected
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
[bullatomsci.org].
But probably you'll just dismiss it as biased, so what's the use? How many civillian causulties do *you* think occurred anyhow?
"What's the use?" you say?
There are many more people than just me reading
this stuff.
It still makes sense to argue your position.
In fact, even the author of the article you cite
expresses uncertainty about the numbers of
civilian's killed.
The relavant paragraph in the article you cite
seems to be:
There have been no precise estimates of civilian casualties during the war.
The most intelligent guesses have been broad ranging: "5,000 15,000 Iraqi
civilians died during the war, and 4,000-6,000 civilians died since the end
of the war due to wounds, lack of medical care, or malnutrition," according
to Greenpeace. The bitter reality is that the numbers of civilians who die
in the war's broadening wake will soon dwarf the number of Iraqis, Kurds,
and other refugees who died in the civil strife after March 1. And the
United Nations estimated in July that 50-80 thousand infants are at risk of
severe malnutrition because of the war.
There's no shame in some bias, as long as you
are honest about it and offer the reader some
chance to review the basis for your conclusions.
What disturbs me here is that you cited the
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BOAS) as the source for the information, where the article itself attributes the figure to Greenpeace.
While I have to admire some of the things
Greenpeace has
done (particularly their interference with
whalers), I would never attribute to them
the credibility that I would the BOAS
In addition, the article doesn't seem to
differentiate between innocent civilians
and those civilians who are part of various
government ministries without holding
military rank.
I have to admit, though, that neither of us
tried to pin the other down on any such
distinction, so I can't really hold that
against you.
The article also doesn't make it clear exactly
what catagories of civilian casualties (I'm
assuming "casualties" is being used to talk
about deaths, even though its proper definition
also includes injuries that would keep one out
of immediate combat) are includes in the
5,000 to 15,000.
Does it include only those people who died directly as a result of military action by
the allied forces?
Does it include deaths that may have occurred
even without the conflict, or deaths that
occurred during the period of sactions before
hostilities commenced?
There are certainly reasons to doubt this figure,
but it should be noted that even the BOAS seemed
to cite the figure for lack of anything better.
And the article you cite is thought provoking,
and stands a good chance of stiring up
useful debate.
It's worth reading.
Some of the Mujahadin have joined the Taliban, but many more are with the Northern Alliance.
All the more reason not to support the Northern Alliance. Bin Laden was once one of the Mujahadin himself. The US has a habit of supporting people like Noriega,
Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, that end up becoming the next enemy.
Clearly we should learn from this.
But sooner or later, the Afghans must determine
their own future.
Osama bin Laden was an outsider who fought with
the Mujahadin, and it appears that he was a fairly
direct recipient of US support during the Soviet
war in Afghanistan.
You are correct that he is just one of many
people we have supported and whom we have lived
to regret supporting.
But we have to fight back, somehow.
The Northern Alliance do not have clean hands,
but they do have the advantage of being Afghans.
I wish we had an ideal ally in Afghanistan to
work with, but the evil that al qaida and the
Taliban represent cannot be ignored.
Our mistake was not helping the Mujahadin during
the Soviet occupation, our mistake was abandoning
them as soon as the Soviet's left.
Likewise, it is not a mistake to help the Northern
Alliance, but it would be a mistake simply to
abandon them after the Taliban militia is no
longer in power.
Slashdot Mirror
Close. Brown dwarfs can be hot enough to fuse deuterium, but not normal hydrogen. Any fusion of normal hydrogen and its not a brown dwarf.
Adrian
There's another important point that I haven't seen anyone mention: There's an important difference between exploitable design flaws and exploitable implementation flaws. When implementation flaws are exploited, those flaws can usually be fixed without removing essential functionality upon which legitimate users may have come to depend. When design flaws are exploited, the design must be changed to correct those flaws, and to do this, is often necessary to frustrate the legitimate expectations of real customers.
I've seen a number of people repeat the naive argument that when there are more Linux users, we will have the same problems with viruses that Windows users have. This argument only makes sense if we ignore MicroSoft's irresponsibility in the design of their software. MicroSoft has knowingly and repeatedly committed to designs that are fundamentally flawed. These design flaws include things like adding powerful, general purpose programming languages and macro languages for applications like word processors, and then adding automatic processing of these files in Mail User Agents. Keep in mind that during the '80s, MicroSoft, along with the rest of the computer industry, faced repeated hoaxes of email viruses, and had to offer again and again to customers the explanation that email could not carry viruses because it did not carry executable content. When MicroSoft made the decision to add automatic handling of executable content to their email systems, they could not have been ignorant of the fact that easy proliferation of viruses would be a consequence of their decision.
MicroSoft has generally been reluctant to fix the design flaws in their software, because they are committed to some level of backward compatibility. Of course, responsible designs, up front, might have made this commitment less problematic. The result has been a florishing industry for anti-virus software. We now go to third party vendors to make up for the poor quality of MicroSoft software and for their unwillingness to take responsibility for their own mistakes.
My experience with widely used Linux software is that the stuff that becomes popular is usually designed much more thoughtfully that is typical of MicroSoft's products. Serious security design flaws are denounced quickly, and perhaps more rudely than is really required. While the vetting process for Linux based software is far from perfect, it has clearly been much more successful than MicroSoft's persistent irresponsibility. I regularly follow email lists about security flaws in Unix/Linux systems, and the vast majority of those flaws are implementation flaws rather than design flaws. The flaws for Linux in particular are quickly address, and patches are released. While I'm aware of virus scanners that run on Unix and Linux systems, to me they seem focussed on scanning email and files for Windows viruses. There are Unix and Linux based because Unix/Linux machines are often file servers and email gateways for Windows systems, and not because there is any problem with viruses that attack Unix/Linux systems.
Finally, Linux developers have not been required to cover for their perjury in the courts and have not been nearly so tempted to violate that maxim of software development that every Computer Science student learns in school: Software should be modular. It should be divided into separate modules, where each module does its job. The interfaces between modules should be clean and simple. Applications should not ever be integrated into the core of operating system. A consequence of rational design in the Unix/Linux world is that software upgrades are far less problematic. I routinely tell my Linux systems to go grab all the relevent updates at SuSE's web site and apply them automatically, and while I have face occasional, minor problems, I have never once had a serious problem with any such update. Every Windows administrator knows that each new update carries with it a substantial risk of rendering his systems inoperab
This article seems like one of the worse excuses for journalism I've seen in some time. The author writes:
Competitors will always whine and cry about how the price-cutting, product-improving, and customer-satisfying practices of their more successful rivals are "unfair." This in fact is the modus operandi of antitrust: The antitrust laws provide a means by which sour-grapes competitors can achieve through politics what they fail to achieve in the marketplace.
This is a dreadfully dishonest characterization of anti-trust laws. Microsoft wasn't accused of success through fair competition. They were accused of a series of dirty tricks that have nothing to do with competing on a level playing field. These tricks include giving their customers discounts if those customers would design their own web sites so that non-MS browsers wouldn't work with them, and pushing PC makers into deals where they had to pay for MS licences, even for machines that were to be loaded with non-MS operating systems.
Neither economists nor politicians nor policy wonks are capable of deciding the most "efficient" size or configuration of any business enterprise. As Ludwig von Mises once explained, "The question to be decided is: Who should determine the size of the enterprises, the consumers by their striving to buy what suits them best or the politicians who know only how to tax away and to spend?"
This is a strawman argument. Anti-trust laws aren't designed to limit the size or market share of companies; The are designed to limit companies from using monopolies or near-monopolies unfairly to exclude competition. As such, they are only targetted at companies that actually have monopolies or near monopolies. But I supposed it's easier for the unscrupulous to simply make up non-sense positions for their adversaries and to claim that their adversaries hold those non-sense positions than it is to argue against the positions their adversaries actually take.
By adhering to this false "maxim" antitrust regulators are attempting to supersede the informed judgment of millions of consumers
Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that most consumers are informed enough to exercise informed judgement, those consumers can only use there judgement to decide among the choices they actually have. If I offer an OS at the same price as MS's and if customers can choose which one to purchase, customers can make a simple judgement about the qualities of the OSs. But if MS has strong-armed vendors into making my customers pay for MS-Windows in addition to my OS for any machine they buy, even if my OS is the only one loaded, then the consumer's choice isn't just about OS qualities, anymore.
Third, the government is clearly unconcerned about consumer welfare in its prosecution of Microsoft: In Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's November 1999 "Statement of Fact" he devoted a mere five out of 412 paragraphs to the issue of consumer welfare.
This is just plain stupid. The point of Judge Jackson's "Findings of Fact" document was to describe the facts of the case, and not to concentrate on the social consequences of the facts. And in any case, the proper focus of a Judge is on the law and on the facts of a case. The author of this article is either showing his ignorance or his dishonesty.
He rests his case on the lame notion that, in his opinion, the company's management had "anticompetitive motives." Economic analysis may not be Mr. Litan's strong point, but mind-reading apparently is. He claims that such a malevolent "intent" has harmed Microsoft's competitor Netscape by keeping it from competing in the Web browser market. In fact, Netscape has distributed more than 150 million copies of its browser since 1995.
The author completely misses the point, and we are left to wonder if he did more than skim the "Findings of Fact" document. MS used the browse
I notice under the "Related Links" section, it says, "Best deals: Your Rights Online". Is this where our government has been selling off our civil rights for the last decade or so?
Adrian
Plus, the 9th has the most cases reviewed by the Supreme Court. They're rogues alright. But they make hard decisions, and generally are in favor of keeping the government the hell out of people's business.
Except when it comes to 2nd Amendment Law, where they look for clever ways of strip people of their constitutional rights.
Adrian
The remark about "trusting sponsored 'research'" misses the point. Real scientists use good methodology to help them keep their bias from influencing the outcome of research. The problem which often comes up in research that is funded to prove a point is that the methodology is bad, and anyone with a good science background should be pointing out that methodology is what matters.
Of course there is some chance that researchers who are out to prove a specific position might fabricate data, but I don't think this is the biggest part of the problem surrounding biased research.
Bias and reputation of the researchers and sponsors are grounds for suspicion; But, to really impeach a study, you must either demonstrate that the methodology is bad or that the data are fabricated. Science is not a popularity contest.
The article does talk about the problems with the methods used in the study, but the SlashDot quote referencing the article seems to be about the fact that the research is "sponsored" by a bad company. In science, it takes more than that to show a study to be unsound.
Adrian
You have a right to legal council in a criminal trial. You are on your on own in a civil trial.
Adrian
Because most people have absolutely no clue what science is about or how to think analytically. Worse yet, most people think that agreement is properly thought of as an act of loyalty and dissent is properly thought of as an act of disloyalty. With such a perverted sense of reasoning, surely we should expect nothing else.
Adrian
An alternate version will soon be announced that will provide even greater privacy through subvocalization. To make this work, the user will have to stick the thumb of his other hand in his mouth. Look for the official annoucement in 1st Quarter 2004.
Adrian
What's really troubling about all this is that Dell is selling you a system, collecting your money, and then trying to change the terms of the deal after the deal has been closed. They are not telling you about the restrictions in the licence terms before you pay your money and commit to the deal. You open the box and you find that Dell intended to give you less than they told you about, up front.
THIS IS FRAUD!
No honorable person can do this to his customers. How can we escape the conclusion that there are no honorable people in charge at Dell? I don't understand why we, as a culture, don't treat these dishonorable people like the criminals that they are.
Adrian
I have, in the past, had a problem that might be the same. I've always called it "burn-out" and I've gone through it at least three times, in my career, so I've had to try to understand it and learn to cope with it.
I'm not sure the problem you are describing is the same as the one I've come to understand, but it may be helpful for me to describe what I think it might be. For brevity, I will assume for the rest of this reply that it is the same.
The problem, fundamentally, has to do with way we think about extremely complex issues. We build up a great deal of context about the issues in our minds, and that context has to stay there, at the edge of our consciousness, so that we can consider the implications, in that context, of the many ideas that occur to us while we are still thinking about the issue of interest.
When we are interrupted, during that kind of thinking, we loose some or all of that context and have to start building it up again. This process of building up and holding that context is not entirely conscious, and is not, therefore, entirely under conscious control. If your subconscious has learned to expect interruptions, it will be preparing to shift to a new subject, rather than helping you build up and maintain context for the problem you really want to explore.
It's worth noting, I think, that after midnight, many of us are subject to fewer interruptions. If you have learned to expect fewer interruptions after midnight, then problems that result from the anticipation of being interrupted will be much easier to avoid. This may be why you can get things done in the wee hours of the morning.
It may help if you can find a good hiding place. If you can learn that hiding helps keep interruptions away, your subconscious may be better at helping you build up and maintain the context you need for more complex problems.
Another thing that may help is to separate the tasks into those that require deep thinking, and those that don't. Take care of the tasks that don't require deep thinking when you can't control the interruptions.
Also, if you think this model of the problem might be close to what you are facing, I would advise you to be a least a little patient with it. You may have to go hide somewhere and live with the fact that the first few times you try it, it may not work. You may have to actually experience the lack of interruptions you face while hiding a few times, before your subconscious stops preparing for the next interruption and starts helping you deal with context, again.
No matter what people say about it, analysis is heavily dependent on intuition. It is much more of a social skill than most people realize. To analize well, your mind requires a certain amount of freedom to drift. You don't have to fight your mind every time it starts to drift, from the very start. If you must employ discipline, do so carefully. Set a timer to beep at you once every 5 or 10 minutes, and use that timer to remind yourself to come back to the problem. Don't stifle your thinking with over-control. Think about how you would explain the subject matter to other people.
Adrian
"When you can no longer buy computers without Windows, you have lost the most basic right of a consumer - the ability to choose what product you spend your money on."
I would argue differently: When you can no longer buy computers without Windows, the market for computers without Windows is too small/unprofitable for a company to take advantage of. I love it when people say, "Microshit is junk/sucks/etc." I always respond that Microsoft must be doing something right, because 90%+ of desktop computers around the world run Windows. There's a obviously a *market* for Windows software and with 90%+ of market penetration, I'd say that Windows is excellent (there's not many products and industries with marketshare like that).
Nonsense. MicroSoft has been engaged in conduct that violates anti-trust laws, and much of their financial success is based on their predatory conduct, not on the merits of their products.
To me (and apparently to the author of this topic article) paying money to MicroSoft is like supporting organized crime. I'm not going to admire organized crime for its financial success and conceed that it "must be doing something right," even if I am trapped into having to deal with them, somehow.
When MicroSoft plays fair (or at least plays legal) and makes a big profit, I'll be impressed. As long as they continue their criminal conspiracy to violate antitrust laws, I'm going to continue to feel soiled every time I'm touched in any way by their lousy software.
Adrian
Many so-called democracies are really oligarchies for sale to the highest corporate bidder.
In the case of the US, this is utter nonsense. If money can be said to buy votes, and therefore buy power, who, exactly, is selling these votes.
Why do we allow ourselves, as voters, to be manupulated so easily by expensive political advertising. When we view these messages skeptically and critically, the messages will begin to reflect the intelligence we bring to bear on them. Whe we vote for polititians that act on sound principles rather than pandering to our own special interests, we will get polititians that don't pander to special interests. In any case, I am sure we will continue to get the governement we deserve. Perhaps, someday, we will try to deserve something better. But it's foolish to think that our problem is a failure in democracy rather than a failure in the voting population.
Adrian
Granted, this point had to be made, and I don't begrudge you the karma points you'll get from it, because you've stated a common misconception about as well as it can be stated.
In effect, you are arguing that, because the content provider intended that the content viewer be exposed to advertising in a particular way, the content viewer becomes obligated to allow himself to be exposed to advertising in the intended manner. I can only imagine this obligation results from some notion of a contract between the content provider and the content viewer.
The problem is that even an implied contract can only arise from a common understand of what things each has the right to expect from the other. There no reason to suppose that either side has any particular right to expect something from the other side. There's not normally any negotiation of terms between a content provider and content viewer prior to the viewer's attempt to fetch content. And there's no reason to think that there is a common social expectation that content viewers must simply accept any manipulations the advertisers choose to employ. No amount of wishful thinking on the part of the scum sucking bastards who have levelled these slanderous accusations of theft is a substitute for such social expectation.
In fact, if either side can be said to have knowingly thwarted the expectations of the other party, surely it is that subset of content providers that stoop to pop-up and pop-under adds. Before there where pop-up and pop-under adds, there were banner adds, and such. These adds were simply embedded in the pages that content viewers retrieved, and viewers were free to ignore them. I think we all know that pop-up and pop-under adds are a response to the fear that most viewers, if left to their own devices, will ignore adds. Pop-up and pop-under adds are an attempt to force the user to do something specific to dispose of the adds. There is no need to take such a step to manipulate a content viewer that wants to look at the adds. These pop-up and pop-under adds are a knowing attempt by content providers to usurp control of content viewer's equipment to do something that the content provider must know the content viewer doesn't want. Again, if the content viewer wanted to look at the adds, there would be no need to take such a step.
In the Internet world, in general, we all have to give other systems on the internet some ability to influence our systems, else we wouldn't be able to communicate with each other at all. Simply putting our systems on the internet and providing a means for other systems to influence our system does not amount to a blank check for other internet users to use our systems for whatever they want. At the same time, the mere fact that I don't want someone to manipulate my system in a particular way is not, in itself, a prohibition against using it that way; The limits one how I want my system used must be stated explicitly, must be clear from the facts of the situation, or must be very commonly agreed upon in our culture to have any meaning.
When I ask for a resource from a web server, nothing about that request implies that I want my system to be manipulated into opening a window that I have to dispose of separately just to show me an advertisement. Nothing about my request can be construed as an agreement to cooperate with the advertising technique.
When a content provider uses a manipulative technique to confront me with an advertisement, and when that technique appears to serve no purpose but to confront with advertisements, those people who would, left to themselves, ignore advertisements, surely it is the content provider who is knowingly defying the expectations of the other party (me). Surely it is this content provider who is knowingly manipulating the content viewer's machine in a way that the provider must know is contrary to the intentions of the machine's owner.
Some content providers have, I believe, levelled a baseless and slanderous charge of theft against some content viewers. This charge is dishonorable. Further, I say that no honorable person could use pop-up or pop-under adds. An advertiser who uses such adds does not respect his customers, and a consumer who encounters such an add should recognize it as a sign of disrespect from the advertiser. Surely we, as consumers, should avoid doing business with companies that are so blatent in expressing their disrespect for their potential customers. When an advertiser is so self-involved and so contemptuous of his potential customers that he would stoop to pop-up or pop-under adds, and then fling a baseless charge of theft against those who employ a technical means to avoid suffering from the tools of these disrespectful manipulations, surely that advertiser is a dreadful sort of human being. Surely such a poor excuse for a human being deserves only contempt and ridicule. Surely the company who employs such a person would do well to fire him or at least never allow him to speak for the company again. Surely such a company owes us an appology for this scoundrel's slander, and if they do not offer us an appology, surely we would be better off not doing business with such a company.
Adrian
First, let me say that I do not want to discourage you from posting these opinions about developing on various platforms. But I must say, I am surprised to hear what seems to be an experienced developer who has used both platforms express a preferences for Windows. I hope you will read and reply to this message, and that perhaps I can learn something from your response.
You began with a brief note about your credentials, so I will follow suit. I have been getting paid to write code for about 23 years, now, and have used a variety of systems and languages. I've hand assembled code for a 6502 based single board system, and entered it via a hex key pad; I've written assembly code for MicroSoft Assembler under DOS; for the IBM 360/370 family and run it under MVT, CMS; for the Motorola 6800, 68000, 6805, and 6811 families, and for the Intel 8080, and 8048 families. I've written code in PL/I, Fortran, BASIC, IBM EXEC, EXEC2, REXX, various Unix shells, PERL, AWK, C, TCL/Expect, and Java, amoung other languages. I love programming and learning new systems, so what I am used to will never keep me from giving other languages and platforms a chance. I have to admit that while I have done some substantial programming under MS-DOS, I have never done any substantial coding under Windows.
While I understand why many normal users like MS-Windows and the user interface it presents, I am rarely asked to do the sort of mundane, ordinary user type work that Windows is designed to facilitate. I get mostly requests to do unusual things. I have often been required to use MicroSoft tools for a number of reasons, but I must say that I have not had a single experience with any of that appalling company's software that was not frustrating and unpleasant. I really hate having things hidden from me. GUI's are nice, I suppose, but I will never be happy with a GUI over a command line interface and flat text configuration files unless that GUI lets me do everything that I can do with the CLI and flat text config files. I find that such a GUI is extremely rare. I really hate hand holdy documentation, because it is almost always incomplete, and I really hate it when documentation says things that are not exactly correct, and I routinely face these problems with MS products. I don't have the words to describe how frustrating it has been for me to design my application to use MicroSoft's API as they are incorrectly documented, and then have to change my designed in the middle of a project to deal with how the API's really work.
Unix, on the other hand, seems like a dream operating system for a programmer. (I'm using "Unix" to refer to all Unix-like systems.) If you forget, for a moment, this naive tendency that some recent Open Source Programmers have to use HOWTO's and "info" files as a substitute for "man" pages (they are fine in addition to "man" pages), Unix documentation is online, generally exact, and fairly complete. Most things are designed to be out in the open and easily understood by the programmer. The tools that are provided with a Unix System are designed to be versatile, because the programmers that created Unix knew that they couldn't anticipate everything that their users (other programmers) will want to do with their system.
I realize that Windows has a number of GUI building tools that make it easy for people to create applications without having to know how to write a lot of code, but it seems like these tools do little to tell the programmer exactly what is going on at a low level with the resulting applications. Am I to trust MicroSoft to make sure the applications that results from my efforts with such a GUI will be secure? Also, how can a really serious programmer be happy with having all the details of what is going on hidden from him (or her)?
Finally, I have done quite a bit of teaching about programming, and I must say that I am concerned about the effect that MS-Windows seems to have on programmers that use it as their development platform. I really think programmers are better off learning from the very beginning that it is important to understand, in very fundamental terms, exactly what is going on in the applications they create. To me, the very notion that one can get by without understanding their application in pretty exact terms is antithetical to good programming. The boundaries between the application and the operating system must be reasonably simple and must be clearly and exactly specified in documentation that comes bundled with the operating system. Getting a new programmer used to the idea that the operating system is a mystery that he is simply not supposed to try to understand is terribly counter-productive. When a program or an operating system has a memory leak, the leak should be fixed; Training users to reboot the system to fix problems sets a terrible example for programmers. When I first learned to write code, and when I found that my program didn't do what I expected, I had to learn that my own mistakes were the most frequent source of problems. Programmers that first learn to program under MS-Windows don't have the benefit of an OS that is stable enough and conforms well enough to its documentation to teach them this essential lesson, and as a result, I find that programmers that come from a MicroSoft background are much more likely than programmers from a Unix background to start off blaming the operating system rather than looking in their own code for the source of their problems. Of course, programmers are individuals, and make their own decisions about what lessons to take from the platforms they use, but the example that the operating system sets is one of the things that influences the decisions that programmers make, in this regard.
So my question is this: What is it, exactly, that makes Windows a better platform for development?
Adrian
Yes, but the original poster of this silly idea was talking about re-marking what was probably a compass card, and since the whole card will be rotated by the changing magnetic field, if "N" and "S" are switched, "E" and "W" must also be switched.
Adrian
I know someone who, in college, changed our local instance of OS/360-MVT to that instead of giving the traditional
message, it would say
Adrian
Actually, its MUCH more complicated than that. This case really is about "unreasonable search and siesure", but the fact that it touches on the first amendment bring a higher standard for justifying the search into play. It touches on the first amendement basically because it appears that the governement seeks to strengthen its case based on the kind of information that a defendant sought to aquire through purchasing books. Any attempt by government to suggest guilt because someone chose to seek information about a controversial subject really does have a chilling effect on free speech.
Note that this case is not about hiding someone's fraudulent use of a credit card in buying a book, or about proving that a suspect was at a bookstore at the time the purchase occurred. This is about the government suggesting that the suspect's choice of the book implies a stronger case for the suspect's guilt.
The decision DID NOT say the search warrant must have been invalid. The decision was, for the most part, narrowly directed at the fact that the procedure that resulted in the warrant was "Ex Parte", or one sided.
Ex Parte proceedings that result in search warrants are often justified on the theory that a suspect might destroy or arrange to destroy evidence if he is warned that there is a judicial proceeding planned during which he can argue against the issue of the warrant. In other words, the government has, in cases where the proposed warrant would be served on a suspect, a compelling interest in surprising the suspect with the warrant.
In this case, the warrant, in question, would be served on an innocent third party, where there was no reason on record to suppose that this third party might attempt to destroy evidence if warned that the government sought to compel it to give up the evidence.
The higher court found that the plantif (the book store) has a reasonable chance of winning their case, that the lower court wasn't quite applying the right test for suitability of warrant application, and that there was no justification for the ex parte nature of the proceeding that produced the warrant. The higher court set the lower court's decision aside and told it to try again. This is not the end of the case.
Adrian
I also agree with an earlier poster -- for the Windows platform, the Terminal Services client is *FAR* superior to VNC -- of course it is -- VNC works by sending bitmaps across the pipe -- the terminal services client can send API calls -- same principle as behind Xwindows.
Nonsense!! With Palm VNC I can take over my desktop with my Kyocera Smartphone. Can you give me a Windows Terminal services client that runs on a palm pilot? There are VNC clients and servers for a large variety of platforms. What do you think are the chances that MS will permit interoperability with Linux (which they've called THE major threat to Windows) or with PalmOS (the major competitor to WinCE)?
Window Terminal Services are only far superior if you've already been assimilated. Even if I am sitting in front of a Windows machine, a Terminal Services client won't help me take over one of my Linux boxes. Terminal Services is mostly just good for locking me into Windows. No thanks.
Adrian
I've always thought it's funny you don't get to accept or decline the EULA until AFTER you plunk down your money for it...
Actually, this is exactly why ELUAs are not usually binding. When you pick up the box, take it to the counter, and pay your money, you have completed a contract. The vendor cannot unilaterally change the terms of that contract by surprising you with a piece of paper with additional terms on the inside.
Actually, the notion of the ELUAs as they are typically attempted by MicroSoft and such are disturbing to me beyond their mere illegality. The idea of ambushing the buyer with additional terms on the contract after the user has already paid for the product is morally repugnant. MicroSoft (along with other vendors) appear to believe that ELUAs should have some force of law, even if the courts know better. If ELUAs were legally binding, wouldn't this ambush tactic be a kind of fraud? How can anyone with a personal sense of honor or any kind of sense of ethics at all perpetrate such a fraud? The very notion of an ELUA hidden from the buyer at the time of purchase with terms as draconian as we keep hearing about from MS speaks volumns of the moral degeneracy that must be rampant at MicroSoft. I would resign from a company before I ever allowed myself to be a party to such a fraud, and I don't understand why the people involved with packaging products and creating these ELUAs at MS don't do this simply to preserve their own integrity. I'm sure MicroSoft would claim that values like integrity, morality, honesty, and honor are very important at their company, but how can we reconcile such a theory with these ELUAs?
Adrian
Adrian
Some aircraft vibrate the stick or the yoke to warn the pilot that the aircraft is close to stalling. Again, I don't know when this practice started, but I don't think it's a new idea.
There may be other elements to the patent that aren't expressed well in the press release, but the idea of force feedback is not, in itself, novel. Since Vietnam was about 30 years ago, it's difficult to imagine that an idea that was in use in the real world that long ago can be the basis for a current patent claim.
Adrian
Neither will reach the president's desk until both houses of Congress pass the same bill with the same text. Passing two different versions is just a matter of posturing. Each house would be showing that it has the consensus it needs to pass its own version.
In this case, as I understand it, the House of Representatives was considering passing the Senate version. If the House wants to make even a single change to the bill, the Senate would then have to vote again and pass the House's ammended version. If the two houses need to actually negotiate a common bill, this is usually done in a conference committee (including members of both houses). A conference committee can devise a specific wording of the bill that they think both houses will accept, and they recommend that wording to both houses; But, even then, the bottom line is that both houses must pass the bill with the same wording before it goes to the President's desk.
Adrian
Further, even if the Taliban were a legitimate government, sponsoring and protecting a group of psychopaths that routinely conduct attacks on another country is an obvious provocation to war, and all this talk of extradition procedures is simply a distraction. We are not filing papers on the Taliban in some world court, we are conducting a war against them. The Paks wanted to offer the Taliban a chance to distance themselves from the terrorists, and in recognition of public sentiment within Pakistan and of Pakistan's intended help to our war efforts, we went along and gave the Taliban a last chance. This is not about extradition; This is about trying to be sensitive to the political realities that our allies face. Treating this like an extradition request would lend legitimacy to the Taliban's claims that they are a government. It would be more correct to consider them co-conspirators that have refused to give up their accomplices. They had a chance to make a deal with the procecutor, and they blew it. Now they are paying the price.
Adrian
-
Frankly, I doubt this claim. Can you substantiate it?
"What's the use?" you say? There are many more people than just me reading this stuff. It still makes sense to argue your position.Certainly, in the sense of giving you quotes from various sources, such as the well respected Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists [bullatomsci.org]. But probably you'll just dismiss it as biased, so what's the use? How many civillian causulties do *you* think occurred anyhow?
In fact, even the author of the article you cite expresses uncertainty about the numbers of civilian's killed.
The relavant paragraph in the article you cite seems to be:
- There have been no precise estimates of civilian casualties during the war.
The most intelligent guesses have been broad ranging: "5,000 15,000 Iraqi
civilians died during the war, and 4,000-6,000 civilians died since the end
of the war due to wounds, lack of medical care, or malnutrition," according
to Greenpeace. The bitter reality is that the numbers of civilians who die
in the war's broadening wake will soon dwarf the number of Iraqis, Kurds,
and other refugees who died in the civil strife after March 1. And the
United Nations estimated in July that 50-80 thousand infants are at risk of
severe malnutrition because of the war.
There's no shame in some bias, as long as you are honest about it and offer the reader some chance to review the basis for your conclusions. What disturbs me here is that you cited the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BOAS) as the source for the information, where the article itself attributes the figure to Greenpeace. While I have to admire some of the things Greenpeace has done (particularly their interference with whalers), I would never attribute to them the credibility that I would the BOASIn addition, the article doesn't seem to differentiate between innocent civilians and those civilians who are part of various government ministries without holding military rank. I have to admit, though, that neither of us tried to pin the other down on any such distinction, so I can't really hold that against you. The article also doesn't make it clear exactly what catagories of civilian casualties (I'm assuming "casualties" is being used to talk about deaths, even though its proper definition also includes injuries that would keep one out of immediate combat) are includes in the 5,000 to 15,000. Does it include only those people who died directly as a result of military action by the allied forces? Does it include deaths that may have occurred even without the conflict, or deaths that occurred during the period of sactions before hostilities commenced?
There are certainly reasons to doubt this figure, but it should be noted that even the BOAS seemed to cite the figure for lack of anything better. And the article you cite is thought provoking, and stands a good chance of stiring up useful debate. It's worth reading.
-
Some of the Mujahadin have joined the Taliban, but many more are with the Northern Alliance.
Clearly we should learn from this. But sooner or later, the Afghans must determine their own future. Osama bin Laden was an outsider who fought with the Mujahadin, and it appears that he was a fairly direct recipient of US support during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. You are correct that he is just one of many people we have supported and whom we have lived to regret supporting. But we have to fight back, somehow. The Northern Alliance do not have clean hands, but they do have the advantage of being Afghans. I wish we had an ideal ally in Afghanistan to work with, but the evil that al qaida and the Taliban represent cannot be ignored. Our mistake was not helping the Mujahadin during the Soviet occupation, our mistake was abandoning them as soon as the Soviet's left. Likewise, it is not a mistake to help the Northern Alliance, but it would be a mistake simply to abandon them after the Taliban militia is no longer in power.All the more reason not to support the Northern Alliance. Bin Laden was once one of the Mujahadin himself. The US has a habit of supporting people like Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, that end up becoming the next enemy.
Adrian