What interoperability features I want? All of them. Except for the interoperability features that are really bugs.
Seriously, the only point of Office on Mac is to be able not to buy a windows license. If Microsoft isn't willing to do a feature complete replacement, maybe they should just rethink it and not sell Office for Mac if they can't swing it. They don't want to, because unless they port the bugs too, that makes office for mac better than office for windows, for certain values of "office for mac specific bugs".
My point is, the people who chose to use MSN last year had no idea this year they'd engage in monopolistic practices. But at this point, everyone seems to be on msn. I'm looking for a way to punish them THROUGH the network effect of their own network, and affecting their bottom line by doing so. By switching to some other network(that doesn't have 40 million people on it) I contend I'm punishing myself more than Microsoft, which is a far from ideal solution. On the other hand, as long as they have the monopoly, and as long as they don't fear it being taken away, they can just abuse it every chance they get. They'll just get piddly fines. If you don't like "force them to sell", you could substitute "nationalize". Several years ago, they've been found guilty of anticompetitive practices, and while IANAL, I do believe that doesn't just make them a monopoly, but an illegal monopoly. They keep abusing that monopoly, I think it should be taken away. When AT&T's monopoly got broken up, they didn't leave the company and network intact and say "consumers, please use something else". And that was a legal monopoly, as I understand it.
They've been convicted of monopolistic practices. They keep up at them. They get fined for each time they do, but the fines never address the problem.
I would see one solution: if their online services get caught trying to participate in monopolistic practices, make sure the court orders them to sell the online service to a hostile party. Not just a third party, it has to be someone who has a fiduciary responsability to make microsoft shares worth zero. Tell them right now that's the next penalty for this, and we'll see if they do it again.
I can just imagine msn being owned by a consortium of ibm and aol(ok ok I need a better example...)
So you're saying the cops should go get a warrant for those records(basically getting a judge to say he really thinks the person is missing) first? In a case of life or death, 99 out of a hundred privacy vs 1 death, the one death loses.
However,I worry that with a too open policy of giving records to police, people would be found missing, just to get them tracked.
I think the phone company should get a written statement saying the police is not interested in the potential victim as a suspect first, and will not use the information in any criminal case where the victim is not a victim(the legalese escapes me right now). What I'm saying is if the cops don't need to get a warrant for it, and it's protected by privacy, they shouldn't be able to use it, period, that way lies fishing for suspects and madness.
Way to go IOC... I thought you had gotten China to agree to have _Chinese_ hotels have unfiltered Internet access(and hadn't considered there might not be that many). Now I hear you didn't even get an exemption from chinese laws, while claiming you won concessions from the Chinese...
Were they just that much better at the negotiating table than you, or were the human rights issue an issue of everyone but the negotiators...
It's still not too late to cancel the Beijing games...
I'd say that this discussion is there, and the title of the article is more interesting than the article itself, mostly because all those lovely, non-cross platform options, aren't wrapped at the language level... And having the cross-platform, generic, unoptimized "threads" abstraction, is harmful, just because nobody bothers to learn the optimal, platform specific ones(or better yet, write a platform agnostic, optimizing solution) where the programmer(they are lazy and require a whip to read any documentation beyond 10 pages, in my experience) doesn't have the choice to NOT do the right thing.
I'm surprised concurrent/ml and coroutines haven't come up into the discussion yet, as especially, coroutines might be a different, better approach.
Considering you can be sued for publishing your opinion that someone else is full of shit, it wouldn't last long... That's called defamation, it's what happened to spamhaus, IIRC.
Actually, the onus of proof, as I understand it, in the US is higher, not lower, if the recording was made in the US. There are statutes that prevent some US organisations from listening to american's private conversations. If foreigners are involved, those restrictions no longer apply.
The iphone, warts and all, appears to be an actual platform. It's actually usable. Every blackberry owner I've seen so far sees it as a mail client, there are very few third party apps and they're not widely known.
The iphone will have third party apps(thanks to the controversy that it didn't) and people will know about them. I'd say that's a good reason to worry at RIM.
I'll miss my palm when my company gets to me, but I hope they replace the blackberries they have with iphones, not force the blackberries onto us.
I wonder if the only vendors upset, are the ones that are used to vet the entries... Anyone have data? At the end of the contest, all their competitors will be able to know just how badly they did against the polymorphic techniques the entrants used. I imagine that would upset the PR people at those companies. As usual, the technical merit of such a competition is NOT the driving force for any discussion, just money.
1) Dell already offers ubuntu under certain conditions, it's not like offering or not XP is linked, to the people affected by this(I keep referring people to the dell website, and people come back with the impression they can only get a pc with vista now, despite the fact that its still sold. 2) WinXP will have "support" long past the cut off date. The end of support date for Windows XP was announced before the end of sale date, I can't rememnber what it is right now, but I believe its in 2010 sometime. 3) Even if they didn't have "support" from microsoft, Dell was already handling some of the support for their XP machines, so it's not fair to say it's unsupported, just "unsupported by vendor"
On the other hand, why not just reverse engineer the cut off date from the end of support date Microsoft? if you're going to stop supporting XP by Jan 2011, the only cut off date that makes sense to me to stop selling is is June 2010, not something in 2008.
OK OK... I know, I'm on slashdot, and expecting Microsoft to make sense, when will I ever learn?
I find it also fascinating that if you presented this in non-internet terms, the citizens would be up in arms.
"We want to film every major turnpike 7/24 so we will always have pictures of infractions when there is one that's commited." They already have for info, so don't need a warrant either, and since the legal status of a backbone done will be needlessly tangled, I'm sure they'll have no trouble getting it classified as a public place. Now encryption would to me, be considered whispering in a public place(so protected speech) but somehow, I doubt that's how the story'll go.
We are built to be selfish, as long as it benefits the group. Natural selection decides what you express in the group, so you can't be un-groupishly selfish. You can't be ungroupishly selfless either.
But what you do, if it doesn't benefit the group, isn't likely to outlast you, unless you become immortal, somehow. Selfish or selfless... are abstract, survival is very concrete. The genes don't code one behaviour over the other, it's just "not too much of an asshole" are less likely to be selected against...
A lot of companies don't want to pay for it, because they think it should have been designed in the project in the first place too... Or assume they're secure. A lot of the snake oil has one good side, it makes people aware the security wasn't in, in the first place. However, since those salesmen have a product, not a redesign, to sell, none of their solutions really address the problem, but makes them a lot of money. I'm mostly talking about smtp and spam here, but the same concept applies elsewhere, to a greater or lesser degree. Backwards compatibility to the insecure solution is usually the killer there, and in a lot of other places too.
The private key you mean? If you mean the public key, that proves nothing, if you mean the private key, anyone who uses it in the future can attribute documents to you. I know 3am PBS isn't popular, but I still wouldn't broadcast it.
I wish I had mot points. Obviously untrue disinformation is not a threat, People will use information hygiene techniques(verifiaibility, checking sources, even debate). It's not so obviously untrue disinformation, which is dangerous. If you slowly, over time, change some story from the truth to something untrue. If it happens slowly enough, people will not have the reflex to check the information, and in time, it will be established as the truth.
I understood it as "he wants to sell Skype and somehow profit personally from the sale" myself. He has to say Skype is profitable(to be able to sell it), but claim a good reason to do so. Making himself look good in the process is probably what started all this, if not actual desire for more dollars.
More developer time can at best, optimise how much we have to think before we act. But as long as users can't act without thought, they will think it's "hard" and will try not to do it.
Battle between developers and human nature, human nature wins.
That's to use, not to write though, more secure code should be easier to understand and debug, and actually be easier to write(provided you take the time to do it right). Good, fast, cheap, pick two.
I live in a 400+ yr old city in North America, 3.5 million greater metropolitan area, 8 million or so people in the province. We have multiple cable, single phone(that includes dsl). The phone came from a monopoly, since disbanded.
Just what part of can't afford did the local cable cos in your argument miss? One of them just busted a million subscribers(I won't go into how many households of the total it gets, I'm biased, I worked for them at one time.)
Can't afford is the disguise/excuse for "well we can't overcharge if we're going to compete with all these others".
They didn't get to hide behind that excuse not to compete, why do you let your cable co do it?
I'm even wondering if what the Article is even feasible, from its premises. If the internet isn't meant for always on, bandwidth hungry services, are we even paying for internet service anymore?
If not, it makes sense for isps to charge extra for non-internet-class service anymore.
If you are still getting internet service, are you just paying for who you can connect to? or do you pay per speed? etc...
Defaulting to encryption would probably be simple... Except on cell phones/other devices that don't do ssl yet. On the other hand, the keywords are transmitted to third parties anyways(You can see them in stats analysis), so google probably figures securing them isn't such a priority.
Slashdot Mirror
What interoperability features I want? All of them. Except for the interoperability features that are really bugs.
Seriously, the only point of Office on Mac is to be able not to buy a windows license. If Microsoft isn't willing to do a feature complete replacement, maybe they should just rethink it and not sell Office for Mac if they can't swing it. They don't want to, because unless they port the bugs too, that makes office for mac better than office for windows, for certain values of "office for mac specific bugs".
My point is, the people who chose to use MSN last year had no idea this year they'd engage in monopolistic practices. But at this point, everyone seems to be on msn. I'm looking for a way to punish them THROUGH the network effect of their own network, and affecting their bottom line by doing so. By switching to some other network(that doesn't have 40 million people on it) I contend I'm punishing myself more than Microsoft, which is a far from ideal solution. On the other hand, as long as they have the monopoly, and as long as they don't fear it being taken away, they can just abuse it every chance they get. They'll just get piddly fines. If you don't like "force them to sell", you could substitute "nationalize". Several years ago, they've been found guilty of anticompetitive practices, and while IANAL, I do believe that doesn't just make them a monopoly, but an illegal monopoly. They keep abusing that monopoly, I think it should be taken away. When AT&T's monopoly got broken up, they didn't leave the company and network intact and say "consumers, please use something else". And that was a legal monopoly, as I understand it.
Quite simple: profit
They've been convicted of monopolistic practices. They keep up at them. They get fined for each time they do, but the fines never address the problem.
I would see one solution: if their online services get caught trying to participate in monopolistic practices, make sure the court orders them to sell the online service to a hostile party. Not just a third party, it has to be someone who has a fiduciary responsability to make microsoft shares worth zero. Tell them right now that's the next penalty for this, and we'll see if they do it again.
I can just imagine msn being owned by a consortium of ibm and aol(ok ok I need a better example...)
So you're saying the cops should go get a warrant for those records(basically getting a judge to say he really thinks the person is missing) first? In a case of life or death, 99 out of a hundred privacy vs 1 death, the one death loses.
However,I worry that with a too open policy of giving records to police, people would be found missing, just to get them tracked.
I think the phone company should get a written statement saying the police is not interested in the potential victim as a suspect first, and will not use the information in any criminal case where the victim is not a victim(the legalese escapes me right now). What I'm saying is if the cops don't need to get a warrant for it, and it's protected by privacy, they shouldn't be able to use it, period, that way lies fishing for suspects and madness.
Way to go IOC...
I thought you had gotten China to agree to have _Chinese_ hotels have unfiltered Internet access(and hadn't considered there might not be that many). Now I hear you didn't even get an exemption from chinese laws, while claiming you won concessions from the Chinese...
Were they just that much better at the negotiating table than you, or were the human rights issue an issue of everyone but the negotiators...
It's still not too late to cancel the Beijing games...
I'd say that this discussion is there, and the title of the article is more interesting than the article itself, mostly because all those lovely, non-cross platform options, aren't wrapped at the language level... And having the cross-platform, generic, unoptimized "threads" abstraction, is harmful, just because nobody bothers to learn the optimal, platform specific ones(or better yet, write a platform agnostic, optimizing solution) where the programmer(they are lazy and require a whip to read any documentation beyond 10 pages, in my experience) doesn't have the choice to NOT do the right thing.
I'm surprised concurrent/ml and coroutines haven't come up into the discussion yet, as especially, coroutines might be a different, better approach.
Considering you can be sued for publishing your opinion that someone else is full of shit, it wouldn't last long... That's called defamation, it's what happened to spamhaus, IIRC.
Actually, the onus of proof, as I understand it, in the US is higher, not lower, if the recording was made in the US. There are statutes that prevent some US organisations from listening to american's private conversations. If foreigners are involved, those restrictions no longer apply.
The iphone, warts and all, appears to be an actual platform. It's actually usable. Every blackberry owner I've seen so far sees it as a mail client, there are very few third party apps and they're not widely known.
The iphone will have third party apps(thanks to the controversy that it didn't) and people will know about them. I'd say that's a good reason to worry at RIM.
I'll miss my palm when my company gets to me, but I hope they replace the blackberries they have with iphones, not force the blackberries onto us.
I wonder if the only vendors upset, are the ones that are used to vet the entries... Anyone have data? At the end of the contest, all their competitors will be able to know just how badly they did against the polymorphic techniques the entrants used. I imagine that would upset the PR people at those companies. As usual, the technical merit of such a competition is NOT the driving force for any discussion, just money.
In a case of destruction of evidence, how do you deal with lack of evidence?
For some cases, I think the onus of proof should be on the individuals responsable(to show they showed due diligence, at least).
1) Dell already offers ubuntu under certain conditions, it's not like offering or not XP is linked, to the people affected by this(I keep referring people to the dell website, and people come back with the impression they can only get a pc with vista now, despite the fact that its still sold.
2) WinXP will have "support" long past the cut off date. The end of support date for Windows XP was announced before the end of sale date, I can't rememnber what it is right now, but I believe its in 2010 sometime.
3) Even if they didn't have "support" from microsoft, Dell was already handling some of the support for their XP machines, so it's not fair to say it's unsupported, just "unsupported by vendor"
On the other hand, why not just reverse engineer the cut off date from the end of support date Microsoft? if you're going to stop supporting XP by Jan 2011, the only cut off date that makes sense to me to stop selling is is June 2010, not something in 2008.
OK OK... I know, I'm on slashdot, and expecting Microsoft to make sense, when will I ever learn?
I find it also fascinating that if you presented this in non-internet terms, the citizens would be up in arms.
"We want to film every major turnpike 7/24 so we will always have pictures of infractions when there is one that's commited." They already have for info, so don't need a warrant either, and since the legal status of a backbone done will be needlessly tangled, I'm sure they'll have no trouble getting it classified as a public place. Now encryption would to me, be considered whispering in a public place(so protected speech) but somehow, I doubt that's how the story'll go.
We are built to be selfish, as long as it benefits the group. Natural selection decides what you express in the group, so you can't be un-groupishly selfish. You can't be ungroupishly selfless either.
But what you do, if it doesn't benefit the group, isn't likely to outlast you, unless you become immortal, somehow. Selfish or selfless... are abstract, survival is very concrete. The genes don't code one behaviour over the other, it's just "not too much of an asshole" are less likely to be selected against...
A lot of companies don't want to pay for it, because they think it should have been designed in the project in the first place too... Or assume they're secure. A lot of the snake oil has one good side, it makes people aware the security wasn't in, in the first place.
However, since those salesmen have a product, not a redesign, to sell, none of their solutions really address the problem, but makes them a lot of money.
I'm mostly talking about smtp and spam here, but the same concept applies elsewhere, to a greater or lesser degree. Backwards compatibility to the insecure solution is usually the killer there, and in a lot of other places too.
The SSL Private key's is WikiLeaks, not the correspondants...
The private key you mean?
If you mean the public key, that proves nothing, if you mean the private key, anyone who uses it in the future can attribute documents to you. I know 3am PBS isn't popular, but I still wouldn't broadcast it.
I wish I had mot points. Obviously untrue disinformation is not a threat, People will use information hygiene techniques(verifiaibility, checking sources, even debate). It's not so obviously untrue disinformation, which is dangerous. If you slowly, over time, change some story from the truth to something untrue. If it happens slowly enough, people will not have the reflex to check the information, and in time, it will be established as the truth.
I understood it as "he wants to sell Skype and somehow profit personally from the sale" myself. He has to say Skype is profitable(to be able to sell it), but claim a good reason to do so. Making himself look good in the process is probably what started all this, if not actual desire for more dollars.
Security happens when you think things through.
Thinking things through all the time is hard
Security makes things harder
More developer time can at best, optimise how much we have to think before we act. But as long as users can't act without thought, they will think it's "hard" and will try not to do it.
Battle between developers and human nature, human nature wins.
That's to use, not to write though, more secure code should be easier to understand and debug, and actually be easier to write(provided you take the time to do it right). Good, fast, cheap, pick two.
I live in a 400+ yr old city in North America, 3.5 million greater metropolitan area, 8 million or so people in the province. We have multiple cable, single phone(that includes dsl). The phone came from a monopoly, since disbanded.
Just what part of can't afford did the local cable cos in your argument miss? One of them just busted a million subscribers(I won't go into how many households of the total it gets, I'm biased, I worked for them at one time.)
Can't afford is the disguise/excuse for "well we can't overcharge if we're going to compete with all these others".
They didn't get to hide behind that excuse not to compete, why do you let your cable co do it?
I'm even wondering if what the Article is even feasible, from its premises. If the internet isn't meant for always on, bandwidth hungry services, are we even paying for internet service anymore?
If not, it makes sense for isps to charge extra for non-internet-class service anymore.
If you are still getting internet service, are you just paying for who you can connect to? or do you pay per speed? etc...
Interesting philosophical question
There is no way for a monitor in this situation not to influence the results... That's why they would need VR.
That version didn't have the I am legend title, so would agree with the great great grand parent post...
Defaulting to encryption would probably be simple... Except on cell phones/other devices that don't do ssl yet. On the other hand, the keywords are transmitted to third parties anyways(You can see them in stats analysis), so google probably figures securing them isn't such a priority.