I used to work at the FRB Boston on the staff of the Financial Service Policy Committee, the body that sets policy for the services that the Fed provides to US banks.
This article is totally misleading. The Fed is not going to be transferring money over the Internet. Clearing and settlement will continue to take place over dedicated, leased, secured IP lines or in data centers with military-level security.
The change being made is how individual commercial banks interface with the computers at the Fed in order in initiate wire transfers and transmit data for bulk transaction processing. FedLine for the Web is a great improvement over the MS-DOS-based systems that are currently in use for small and medium-sized banks. Through these systems, banks do a variety of things, including initiate wire transfers, check intraday overdraft balances, submit batch files for overnight ACH payments processing, and many others. More info here
on what the Fedline is and the various ways of accessing it. The Fed had been developing FedLine for Windows, but abandoned that in the late 90's. Doing this over the web is no more risky than online banking for the consumer, except that the sums are greater -- but so are the benefits -- as long as precautions are taken, such as one-time-use TANs (transaction authorization numbers), certificates, etc.
In my experience, a G4 processor "feels" about as fast as a P3 or P4 with twice its clock speed. Floating point and integer benchmarks usually come out this way too. Integer benchmark running in Java (client) here. Of course, the complie speed will also be affected by the compiler, but Apple's XCode and Project Builder have a pretty good reputation, I think.
Moreover, he could pay this $100m out of his own pocket very easily, if he were allowed. He owns 1.15 BILLION shares of MSFT store, which puts the value of his stock in MSFT at over $31.5 billion. According to SEC filings, He has sold over $100 million in MSFT stock since in the past two months, which is not unusual. See Yahoo Finance for details.
Perhaps we should be mad at companies that manufacture knives. After all, plenty of people use them to hurt others.
Perhaps we should boycott PGP and all other encryption software/algorithms. After all, they are very probably people that use that to plan or execute terrorist acts.
The fact is that there are plenty of products that can be used for nefarious purposes. But the software in use in China does have real usefulness. It seems a stretch to hold a software company accountable for the way in which users use the software, unless the only possible use for the software is to do unethical/illegal acts.
I found the following quotation in the article particularly enlightening:
Microsoft has come to a critical juncture. It can choose to continue its war of attrition with regulators, constantly testing the legal limits and, when it crosses them, treating the consequences as the cost of doing business. Or the company could throw off its monopoly mindset and decide to compete, like most other firms are forced to do, solely on the merits of its products.
If history is any guide, it is not difficult to predict which of these two paths Microsoft will take. On the other hand, there are a few examples of companies that have begun as monopolies and actually ended up increasing the value of the company faster after being forced to give up their monopoly position. For example, after the breakup of AT&T in 1982, the companies formed as a result have grown much more quikly. According to this article at Businessweek
The breakup created an array of choices that consumers still find confusing. But it's widely agreed that it lowered long-distance prices and stimulated innovation. The companies created out of the Bell System, including those since swallowed up, are worth about $810 billion today, vs. $59 billion before the breakup. That 1,300% gain compares to a market-cap rise of just 140% for IBM over the same period.
So... Microsoft splitting itself up would be good not only for consumers and competitors, but perhaps also for its stockholders.
According to the FAQ, it is not that iBooks purchased in the last three years are eligible, but rather that some iBooks are eligible for three years after purchase.
Directly from the FAQ:
How long is the iBook Logic Board Repair Extension Program available?
The program covers affected iBooks for three years after the first retail sale of the unit. Apple will continue to evaluate the repair data and will provide further repair extensions as needed.
For which computers is the iBook Logic Board Repair Extension Program available?
The program is available for iBooks with serial numbers in the following range(s):
UV220XXXXXX to UV318XXXXXX
iBooks with the serial numbers listed above may be referred to as:
iBook (16 VRAM),
iBook (14.1 LCD 16 VRAM)
iBook (Opaque 16 VRAM)
iBook (32 VRAM)
iBook (14.1 LCD 32 VRAM)
Moreover, according to this article from Reuters, these models were manufactured between May 2002 and April 2003.
Reminds me of a circa 1986 Compaq suitcase with dual 5.25" floppy drives. I guess the 17" LCD is better than the green or orange monochrome (can't remember what color it had), but boy is that thing big.
From the article: In addition, sources said Panther will finally mark the debut of the much-discussed "piles" GUI design concept, which Apple patented in June 2001. According to the patent, piles comprise collections of documents represented graphically in stacks. Users can browse the "piled" documents dynamically by pointing at them with the cursor; the filing system can then divide a pile into subpiles based on each document's content. At the user's request, the filing system can automatically file away documents into existing piles with similar content.
I must have missed the "much-discussed" piles conecpt on/. Can someone enlighten me, please?
How does this differ from a hierarchical filing system? Aren't my directories "piles of related documents"? Does ths just automate filing by indexing the content or am I missing something?
Jesus, did you have to hit a karma-poor guy with -2 redundant? After all, my comment was posted less than one minute after the other guy's. Could it possibly be that his comment was not posted when I posted mine?
Yes, I did read the article, and it is primarily about why Dell is considering moving *some* of its systems from Solaris to Linux. My point, however, remains valid. In this context "unix" was referring to commercial unices, such as Solaris, HP-UX, etc., not to Linux, which the article specifically contrast with commercial unices. Dell certainly does not manufacture hardware that run these OSes. They would benefit mcuh from their complete demise.
Hmm... Could it be that Dell has an interest in actively killing enterprise-class unix, given that Dell doesn"t manufacture any serious unix hardware. (I know you can installed various flavors of unix on Dell servers and workstations, but Dell has clearly and intentionally linked its own success to Microsoft's.)
This is about as surprising as Microsoft claiming that open source software is crap.
To me, This just smacks of wishful thinking and marketing.
FYI, according to the download site Mac OS X binaries will be releaed "in a few weeks." In the meantime it will run (untested) in classic mode. I think I'll wait... i just hate waiting for Classic to start and the fact that it sucks up so many clock cycles while running...
From the article: The lion's share of cases prosecuted under the most-often-used computer crime statute--Title 18, Section 1030 of the United States Code--involved monetary damage to a private interest. In a review of 55 cases highlighted by the Department of Justice, only 15 involved harm to the public and only one involved a threat to safety, the paper stated.
Property crime is a crime, and it should be, but the danger posed to others by these crimes is usually minimal. The mental anguish caused by crimes committed thorugh violence or the threat of violence is, and IMO, should be punished more harshly.
People need to know that some stuff is wrong and I like the idea of setting some examples. You don't screw with other people's property or their data
The point of the article is that there already are relevant examples and that hacker crime is analogous to white collar fraud. Ergo... it should be treated the same way in the law and in sentencing.
I think we are on to something. The average computer user does undersatnd what an operating system does, why it is necessary, and how it is distinguished from an application, a driver, or perhaps even from the hardware. I can't remember how many times people have told me that they use Windows as their word processing program, or asked why they can't play Minesweeper on my Mac (Minesweeper-like Mac shareware or VirtualPC notwithstanding).
Moreover, the quesiton about whether "Configure using DHCP" or "Get IP Address automatically" is moot for these users. Both are equally opaque. (What's DHCP? What's an IP address?) And instructing them to consult their Network Administrator doesn't help much either, because they don't have one.
In general, an OS should be easy to install and use and hard to screw up for those without a clue, but robust and flexible enough for those with a clue. IMHO, both Windows and Linux force this complexity on the user, and Mac OS X has gone farthest in reducing the appearance of complexity, while still offering it to the users who want to use it.
This complexity permeates the experience fo Windows and Linux. Why call it a C: drive? or a D: or and E: drive? Why not call it a hard drive or a CD-ROM or a DVD? Why call it a NIC instead of an ethernet card or socket? We don't call light bulbs by some abscure acronym (perhaps TFE - Tungsten Filament Enclusures?); why do computer parts need obscure names?
For example, when setting up an Internet connection, Mac OS X 10.1asked me how I connect to the Internet. Do I use a modem? Cable Modem? DSL? Airport? etc. and then configures all the network setings for me. While the most clueless of users might not know the answer to this question, it presupposes much less technical knowledge than either Windows or Linux. (And gives me the GUI and CLI tools to do lower level configuration work if I want to).
I endorse some of the posts above that have called ffor a three way comparison: Windows vs. Linux vs. Mac
I did not claim that the system is identical. But using cameras to monitor traffic violations is not a a new idea. That was my point.
The fact that you can avoid paying the penalty by telling German authorities that your American or Brazilan friend was driving only reinforces the most important point in my post -- the fact that Germans are compelled to tell authorities that someone else did it (even if they lie about it) rather than simply saying that they did not do it. .
if the cameras do not work is another issue. But I suppose if they could get the timing right, then this would not be the problem.
Actually stopping drivers to issue traffic tickets is the right thing to do not becasue the camera system does not work, but because it is the fair way to do it.
The London system concerns me because of its invasion of privacy, which, for all of its other faiures, the German camera system does not
Here in Germany, there have been cameras for traffic violations for a long time (at least en years). The system sounds similar to what is going on in London, but for a different purpose. In Germany, they are typically used for speeding violations or for running red lights. Technologically quite primitive, too. Just place a sensor in the road (or two if you need to measure speed), snap a photo of the driver and the license plate, and send the summons to the vehicle's owner.
In cases where the owner is the person driving the car, this does not seem like too much of a problem -- you know when you've been caught and you expect the summons in the mail (the flash is so bright, you can't mistake it, even in full sunlight, which is all-too-rare in Germany).
The problem arises when the car's owner and the person caught violation traffic laws are not the same. In Germany, the vehicle's owner is responsible for either identifying the individual in the photo or paying the fine, which to me shifts the burden of law enforcement from the state to the individual. Why should I accept this responsibility? It is the responsibiltiy of the police to figure who committed a crime, however minor, and not force me to choose between paying a fine or identifying the culprit -- assuming that I know who the person is.
I wonder how the British system is going to handle this?
For those interested in more details than the BBC is reporting. The original scientifc articlle is in Nature, and here is link to a series of articles published on the subject. Many of the articles are quite technical, but perhaps some of you are amateur (or professional) paleontologists?
The summary of the lead article reads as follows: "The search for the earliest fossil evidence of the human lineage has been concentrated in East Africa. Here we report the discovery of six hominid specimens from Chad, central Africa, 2,500km from the East African Rift Valley. The fossils include a nearly complete cranium and fragmentary lower jaws. The associated fauna suggest the fossils are between 6 and 7million years old. The fossils display a unique mosaic of primitive and derived characters, and constitute a new genus and species of hominid. The distance from the Rift Valley, and the great antiquity of the fossils, suggest that the earliest members of the hominid clade were more widely distributed than has been thought, and that the divergence between the human and chimpanzee lineages was earlier than indicated by most molecular studies."
Slashdot Mirror
I used to work at the FRB Boston on the staff of the Financial Service Policy Committee, the body that sets policy for the services that the Fed provides to US banks.
This article is totally misleading. The Fed is not going to be transferring money over the Internet. Clearing and settlement will continue to take place over dedicated, leased, secured IP lines or in data centers with military-level security.
The change being made is how individual commercial banks interface with the computers at the Fed in order in initiate wire transfers and transmit data for bulk transaction processing. FedLine for the Web is a great improvement over the MS-DOS-based systems that are currently in use for small and medium-sized banks. Through these systems, banks do a variety of things, including initiate wire transfers, check intraday overdraft balances, submit batch files for overnight ACH payments processing, and many others. More info here on what the Fedline is and the various ways of accessing it. The Fed had been developing FedLine for Windows, but abandoned that in the late 90's. Doing this over the web is no more risky than online banking for the consumer, except that the sums are greater -- but so are the benefits -- as long as precautions are taken, such as one-time-use TANs (transaction authorization numbers), certificates, etc.
In my experience, a G4 processor "feels" about as fast as a P3 or P4 with twice its clock speed. Floating point and integer benchmarks usually come out this way too. Integer benchmark running in Java (client) here. Of course, the complie speed will also be affected by the compiler, but Apple's XCode and Project Builder have a pretty good reputation, I think.
Moreover, he could pay this $100m out of his own pocket very easily, if he were allowed. He owns 1.15 BILLION shares of MSFT store, which puts the value of his stock in MSFT at over $31.5 billion. According to SEC filings, He has sold over $100 million in MSFT stock since in the past two months, which is not unusual. See Yahoo Finance for details.
Perhaps we should be mad at companies that manufacture knives. After all, plenty of people use them to hurt others.
Perhaps we should boycott PGP and all other encryption software/algorithms. After all, they are very probably people that use that to plan or execute terrorist acts.
The fact is that there are plenty of products that can be used for nefarious purposes. But the software in use in China does have real usefulness. It seems a stretch to hold a software company accountable for the way in which users use the software, unless the only possible use for the software is to do unethical/illegal acts.
I screwed up the link to the article at Businessweek. Here is thearticle from 1999 I was referring to.
If history is any guide, it is not difficult to predict which of these two paths Microsoft will take. On the other hand, there are a few examples of companies that have begun as monopolies and actually ended up increasing the value of the company faster after being forced to give up their monopoly position. For example, after the breakup of AT&T in 1982, the companies formed as a result have grown much more quikly. According to this article at Businessweek
So... Microsoft splitting itself up would be good not only for consumers and competitors, but perhaps also for its stockholders.
Directly from the FAQ:
Moreover, according to this article from Reuters, these models were manufactured between May 2002 and April 2003.
Reminds me of a circa 1986 Compaq suitcase with dual 5.25" floppy drives. I guess the 17" LCD is better than the green or orange monochrome (can't remember what color it had), but boy is that thing big.
So, where can I find this wonderful program that will exonerate me from any liability should the FBI come knocking at my door?
..."
(Knock on door) "Open up, Mr. Smith. This is special agent Johnson withthe FBI. we have a warrant to search your premises."
(LippyTheLip quickly downloads said trojan to have an alibi) "Sure, come on in Agent Smith. Let me restart my computer for you.
From the article: In addition, sources said Panther will finally mark the debut of the much-discussed "piles" GUI design concept, which Apple patented in June 2001. According to the patent, piles comprise collections of documents represented graphically in stacks. Users can browse the "piled" documents dynamically by pointing at them with the cursor; the filing system can then divide a pile into subpiles based on each document's content. At the user's request, the filing system can automatically file away documents into existing piles with similar content.
/. Can someone enlighten me, please?
I must have missed the "much-discussed" piles conecpt on
How does this differ from a hierarchical filing system? Aren't my directories "piles of related documents"? Does ths just automate filing by indexing the content or am I missing something?
Jesus, did you have to hit a karma-poor guy with -2 redundant? After all, my comment was posted less than one minute after the other guy's. Could it possibly be that his comment was not posted when I posted mine?
A Price?
Yes, I did read the article, and it is primarily about why Dell is considering moving *some* of its systems from Solaris to Linux. My point, however, remains valid. In this context "unix" was referring to commercial unices, such as Solaris, HP-UX, etc., not to Linux, which the article specifically contrast with commercial unices. Dell certainly does not manufacture hardware that run these OSes. They would benefit mcuh from their complete demise.
Hmm... Could it be that Dell has an interest in actively killing enterprise-class unix, given that Dell doesn"t manufacture any serious unix hardware. (I know you can installed various flavors of unix on Dell servers and workstations, but Dell has clearly and intentionally linked its own success to Microsoft's.)
This is about as surprising as Microsoft claiming that open source software is crap.
To me, This just smacks of wishful thinking and marketing.
The article is not pay-per-view. Just click on the link and the article appears... (Yes, I am well aware that the parent was a joke.)
FYI, according to the download site Mac OS X binaries will be releaed "in a few weeks." In the meantime it will run (untested) in classic mode. I think I'll wait... i just hate waiting for Classic to start and the fact that it sucks up so many clock cycles while running...
From the article: The lion's share of cases prosecuted under the most-often-used computer crime statute--Title 18, Section 1030 of the United States Code--involved monetary damage to a private interest. In a review of 55 cases highlighted by the Department of Justice, only 15 involved harm to the public and only one involved a threat to safety, the paper stated.
Property crime is a crime, and it should be, but the danger posed to others by these crimes is usually minimal. The mental anguish caused by crimes committed thorugh violence or the threat of violence is, and IMO, should be punished more harshly.
People need to know that some stuff is wrong and I like the idea of setting some examples. You don't screw with other people's property or their data
The point of the article is that there already are relevant examples and that hacker crime is analogous to white collar fraud. Ergo... it should be treated the same way in the law and in sentencing.
I think we are on to something. The average computer user does undersatnd what an operating system does, why it is necessary, and how it is distinguished from an application, a driver, or perhaps even from the hardware. I can't remember how many times people have told me that they use Windows as their word processing program, or asked why they can't play Minesweeper on my Mac (Minesweeper-like Mac shareware or VirtualPC notwithstanding).
Moreover, the quesiton about whether "Configure using DHCP" or "Get IP Address automatically" is moot for these users. Both are equally opaque. (What's DHCP? What's an IP address?) And instructing them to consult their Network Administrator doesn't help much either, because they don't have one.
In general, an OS should be easy to install and use and hard to screw up for those without a clue, but robust and flexible enough for those with a clue. IMHO, both Windows and Linux force this complexity on the user, and Mac OS X has gone farthest in reducing the appearance of complexity, while still offering it to the users who want to use it.
This complexity permeates the experience fo Windows and Linux. Why call it a C: drive? or a D: or and E: drive? Why not call it a hard drive or a CD-ROM or a DVD? Why call it a NIC instead of an ethernet card or socket? We don't call light bulbs by some abscure acronym (perhaps TFE - Tungsten Filament Enclusures?); why do computer parts need obscure names?
For example, when setting up an Internet connection, Mac OS X 10.1asked me how I connect to the Internet. Do I use a modem? Cable Modem? DSL? Airport? etc. and then configures all the network setings for me. While the most clueless of users might not know the answer to this question, it presupposes much less technical knowledge than either Windows or Linux. (And gives me the GUI and CLI tools to do lower level configuration work if I want to).
I endorse some of the posts above that have called ffor a three way comparison: Windows vs. Linux vs. Mac
Therre is a better article anyway at the BBC
Perhaps I am not the only slashdotter left who does not know what this thing looks like.
You can find a selection of pictures here. The fourth and fifth rows from the botttom of the page have photos of the F-22. The best one is here.
I did not claim that the system is identical. But using cameras to monitor traffic violations is not a a new idea. That was my point.
The fact that you can avoid paying the penalty by telling German authorities that your American or Brazilan friend was driving only reinforces the most important point in my post -- the fact that Germans are compelled to tell authorities that someone else did it (even if they lie about it) rather than simply saying that they did not do it. .
if the cameras do not work is another issue. But I suppose if they could get the timing right, then this would not be the problem.
Actually stopping drivers to issue traffic tickets is the right thing to do not becasue the camera system does not work, but because it is the fair way to do it.
The London system concerns me because of its invasion of privacy, which, for all of its other faiures, the German camera system does not
Here in Germany, there have been cameras for traffic violations for a long time (at least en years). The system sounds similar to what is going on in London, but for a different purpose. In Germany, they are typically used for speeding violations or for running red lights. Technologically quite primitive, too. Just place a sensor in the road (or two if you need to measure speed), snap a photo of the driver and the license plate, and send the summons to the vehicle's owner.
In cases where the owner is the person driving the car, this does not seem like too much of a problem -- you know when you've been caught and you expect the summons in the mail (the flash is so bright, you can't mistake it, even in full sunlight, which is all-too-rare in Germany).
The problem arises when the car's owner and the person caught violation traffic laws are not the same. In Germany, the vehicle's owner is responsible for either identifying the individual in the photo or paying the fine, which to me shifts the burden of law enforcement from the state to the individual. Why should I accept this responsibility? It is the responsibiltiy of the police to figure who committed a crime, however minor, and not force me to choose between paying a fine or identifying the culprit -- assuming that I know who the person is.
I wonder how the British system is going to handle this?
Oops. Here's what I meant to post.
For those interested in more details than the BBC is reporting. The original scientifc articlle is in Nature, and here is link to a series of articles published on the subject. Many of the articles are quite technical, but perhaps some of you are amateur (or professional) paleontologists?
The summary of the lead article reads as follows: "The search for the earliest fossil evidence of the human lineage has been concentrated in East Africa. Here we report the discovery of six hominid specimens from Chad, central Africa, 2,500km from the East African Rift Valley. The fossils include a nearly complete cranium and fragmentary lower jaws. The associated fauna suggest the fossils are between 6 and 7million years old. The fossils display a unique mosaic of primitive and derived characters, and constitute a new genus and species of hominid. The distance from the Rift Valley, and the great antiquity of the fossils, suggest that the earliest members of the hominid clade were more widely distributed than has been thought, and that the divergence between the human and chimpanzee lineages was earlier than indicated by most molecular studies."
For those interested in more details than the BBC is reporting. The original scientifc articlle is in Nature, and here is a /a> to a series of articles published on the subject. Many of the articles are wuite technical, but perhasp some of you are amateur (or professional) paleontologists?
The summary of the article read as follows: "The search for the earliest fossil evidence of the human lineage has been concentrated in East Africa. Here we report the discovery of six hominid specimens from Chad, central Africa, 2,500km from the East African Rift Valley. The fossils include a nearly complete cranium and fragmentary lower jaws. The associated fauna suggest the fossils are between 6 and 7million years old. The fossils display a unique mosaic of primitive and derived characters, and constitute a new genus and species of hominid. The distance from the Rift Valley, and the great antiquity of the fossils, suggest that the earliest members of the hominid clade were more widely distributed than has been thought, and that the divergence between the human and chimpanzee lineages was earlier than indicated by most molecular studies."