Alright, given that maybe four people understood that reference, and apparently none of them had mod points (and neither do I), I'd just like to say...
ROFL!!!!!!
I swear I almost spit water on my keyboard when I read that.
That's true, but the PS2 is getting some heavy competition now. They're releasing their "new version" of the PS2, the.. PSX, I think? Plus, the GC is now dirt cheap, X-BOX has many great games coming out in the near future, some of which, including Halo 2, are for X-BOX only; and to top it all off, GTA3 and GTA:VC which themselves probably sold a crapload of PS2s, is being released for X-BOX in time for the holidays. Damn that was a long sentence...
Anyway, heck, I almost bought a PS2 for those GTA games, but now I won't have to cos I can get it for my X-BOX. If they drop to $99 though, I may still buy one.
All things considered, this may not be as unlikely as you may think.
Maybe that's because of multi-tasking? Back in the day, all you did while you were on the phone was sit around in your living room and maybe watch TV in the background. Now, with cell phones, we talk on the phone while we're walking around, driving, shopping, pretty much everything.
I'd think that would help reaction times when we're actually focusing on a single task.
Honestly, though, he is modest. The IBM Campus in Raleigh had a career builder seminar once that he attended. He actually showed a video where he was speaking at a small conference where Bill Gates was in attendence.
On the video, someone made a comment about Ctrl-Alt-Del being a life saver as an easy way to reboot systems after a crash (back when the blue screen stayed up by default). His response was "I just coded the Ctrl-Alt-Del sequence. Bill Gates made it famous." The implication wasn't intentional, but the look on Bill's face was priceless.
What I actually meant there was that you could replace "Mormon" with any other religion about which there is not a decent amount of general knowledge. While I think there's a difference between big C Christians and christians, I see your point; the statement was ambiguous.
That's a good question.. I didn't know his religious affiliation, or even that he had one, until now. For the purposes of my theory on this, one could just as easily substitute "Mormon" for any other non-Catholic/Christian belief, such as Shin-tao, Athiest, or the current hot bed, Muslim.
Religion is an extremely touchy matter in the States. Depending on the matter in which that information was introduced, it would be very easy for any journalist to appear to be "branding" Mormons based on the McBride model.
The more.. how to put this delicately.. "unconventional" the general view of said religion, the more likely it becomes that you'd see backlash. Additionally, I'd wager most Americans don't know much about the Mormon faith. I personally do not. If we assume this to be true (it's a safe assumption.. Most Americans are very zealous about our own religion and avoid studying any other religions), then the vast majority of what the general population knows about Mormons, or any non-highly publicized religion, then, comes from what we "learn" on TV. So the danger of branding the religion becomes greater.
Ultimately, though, his religious affiliation would theoretically not make a difference in the business world, so religion would be irrelavant (much like there wasn't much said about the religious affiliation of Ken Lay, the Enron guy). The only time America seems to (openly) care about the religion of an individual is if they're a religious extremist or a politician. How's that for separation of church and state?
I cringe when I see people pretending it's somehow scientific to call an unproved hypothesis an 'explanation' just because it fits the current materialist paradigms, and to dismiss wholesale the whole realm of new age thinking, lots of which has been experimentally validated (obviously positive thinking strengthens the immune system, obviously lots of natural remedies have a biochemical basis).
I don't know if I'd go that far. Probably not soon, but it'll likely happen eventually.
The one thing IBM loves to tout is their ability to provide a complete solution, from the servers to the users' computers (be they desktops or laptops). Eventually, they'll likely want to push a full on Linux integration. But part of their end-to-end solution is installation, network configuration and then system support. Formal support for Linux is just not that great right now.
In the future, as it becomes more commoditized, likely that will improve. Right now, more people use Windows and Windows "support technicians" (read: helpdesk monkeys) are cheap. Linux support technicians are not. So this would require a major shift in the helpdesk to either invest in training your support people on Linux or dropping the cash to hire a team of Linux support agents. Helpdesks do not generate a cash flow. Investments in helpdesks are usually as small as possible, as infrequently as possible.
Pay per email would be pretty interesting. General email at a low cost per message sent, if it crosses network borders. And between hosts would cost, like from msn.com to aol.com, but would not cost if sent to someone with the same host; aol.com to aol.com. It'd be almost like a phone company with local v. long distance calling rates.
Heck it could even be set up so that someone who sends a lot of mail could purchase a package that includes X number of free emails per month.
I'd think that would be extremely difficult to effectively set up, logistically, though, and the business world would likely (understandably) have an absolute fit if the idea were ever seriously considered.
Then again, maybe it'd save enough money in terms of bandwidth that it would be worth it.
Congress passed new copyright rules in 1998 that created a new royalty structure, unknown in traditional radio, under which Internet radio stations would pay record labels and artists a fee for playing their music online. Lawmakers didn't specify how much this fee would be, kicking off years of battles.
Pretty soon IBM will give them the bitch-slap they so truly deserve and likely buy their assets pennies on the dollar at a bankruptcy sale.
Everyone has been saying this since this whole ordeal started. It hasn't happened yet, and everyone keeps saying it will. That kind of makes me nervous. I personally don't think SCO has a leg to stand on, but my opinion doesn't much matter. I really do wish IBM would get off their duff and deliver this much anticipated bitch slap already and put a stop to this crap.
I agree. Not to mention the fact that he should take some of his own advice. He certainly touts professionalism and correct grammar while filling grammatically incorrect sentences with a fairly significant amount of curse words.
While I'm not anti-cursing (in most cases), I don't particularly find the frequent use of curse words (especially in "journalism") professional.
Think about it. You buy insurance so you can be compensated when/if your system is hit by a security bug.
Then, you're held responsible for your part in propigating a virus/worm if it happens, complete with fiscal responsibility.
So, you get hit with a virus and it propigates via your system. Your insurance takes care of your liability. But you had to file a claim so now your premium goes up.
Now, even the average, clueless user has a vested interest in keeping their system secure. And that interest is backed by the best possible motivator: Money.
Hey, cars should be easy too. And while it's easy for me to lock my doors, it's easy for someone to break my window as well. If someone does break my window, pops my hood and pulls out a.. uh.. hose or something (I know nothing about the inner workings of cars) I can't hold Nissan liable for putting windows (*cough*) on my car.
The bottom line being that OS Security is in the same arms race as Network Security and Digital Rights Management: for every update to every system, someone's going to try to find a way around it. There likely isn't a good way to make an operating system (ANY operating system) completely secure, without lobotomizing it. Just like you're never going to make your car completely secure from thieves unless you make it unusable, and even then "completely" probably goes a bit far.
So who do we hold responsible? Surely the perpitrators of said attacks, just like we hold thieves liable. But thieves are sometimes quite hard to catch and hackers seem to be even more difficult. If we continue this comparason, the next logical step is Insurance. Maybe State Farm or Allstate should start offering PC Security insurance wherein, for a small monthly fee (or large, in the case of corporations), you can be compensated for damage done to your system or the time it takes you to restore your system post attack, as long as you can establish that you took the necessary steps to protect your system, which means, in part, applying patches in a timely manner.
And maybe, instead of overlooking cluelessness, it really could be punished. If someone's car gets stolen but they left the doors open and the keys in it, while we don't excuse them completely, we usually do say "well, wise up.. that'll teach you." But in the case of a worm, your unpatched system can go on to do damage to other systems, in which case you are (partially) responsible for the propagation of a damaging and costly problem. So you have to take responsibility for the damage you caused, just like I have to take responsibility for the damage I do with my car, even if that's as a direct result of a vandal, say.. cutting my brake line. It's still my fault. That's why I have insurance. Is there anyone from an insurance company reading? Do you see a money maker here??
This is definitely not a one-for-one comparason and I personally feel the computer security situation is far more complex than the car security bit. And just like car makers issue recalls and face liability issues for glaring oversights in manufacturing, I certainly think OS makers should face the same thing. But you're crazy if you think Microsoft makes unsecure software on purpose. Should they do more testing? Aboslutely, but how many applications really get tested as extensively as they should? But, people point out security problems, and sometimes, MS decides to fix them. Hey great. Then it's up to the user to apply the patch. This system is at least workable, so long as they don't put people in jail for discussing security holes. And while I'm ranting, if we're gonna do that, shouldn't we start putting the Consumer Reports people in jail for doing and releasing testing that leads to the indentification of a defect resulting in a recall? I mean really! Lets have some equality!
Or maybe a commercial about the loss of revenue by not capitalizing on technology? I know it's been said before, but I haven't seen it in response to this article, so I'll reiterate:
If priacy is such a huge problem because it's so easy for someone to quickly and conveniently download a decent quality movie from the web, why doesn't someone slap together a business plan and create a cost based service out of exactly that?
The RIAA may suck, but at least they're giving that a shot with a few new services they're trying out for music. Granted, most of those services suck, but it's at least a step in the right direction.
If people are so willing to download movies all the time, why don't those fools at the MPAA simply make the movies available in a comparable environment (e.g. ease of download, quality of picture) at a reasonable price? This would be a much more constructive outlet than trying to cast all file-swappers as thieves.
Ever thought of inserting a subtle "h" in your acronym to make the public like you more? You could recruit Eric Estrada and ride around on motorcycles with 80's mucis in the background and use cool ID codes like W3 5UK. Seriously, you should consider it.
Slashdot Mirror
ROFL!!!!!!
I swear I almost spit water on my keyboard when I read that.
Damn that was a long sentence...
Anyway, heck, I almost bought a PS2 for those GTA games, but now I won't have to cos I can get it for my X-BOX. If they drop to $99 though, I may still buy one.
All things considered, this may not be as unlikely as you may think.
This DMCA thing is getting nucking futs.
Welcome to slashdot. Please leave your sense of humor (humour) at the door.
I'd think that would help reaction times when we're actually focusing on a single task.
Are they sure it's not the hash?
I should really get some work done...
On the video, someone made a comment about Ctrl-Alt-Del being a life saver as an easy way to reboot systems after a crash (back when the blue screen stayed up by default). His response was "I just coded the Ctrl-Alt-Del sequence. Bill Gates made it famous." The implication wasn't intentional, but the look on Bill's face was priceless.
Thanks for the clarification.
Religion is an extremely touchy matter in the States. Depending on the matter in which that information was introduced, it would be very easy for any journalist to appear to be "branding" Mormons based on the McBride model.
The more .. how to put this delicately .. "unconventional" the general view of said religion, the more likely it becomes that you'd see backlash. Additionally, I'd wager most Americans don't know much about the Mormon faith. I personally do not. If we assume this to be true (it's a safe assumption.. Most Americans are very zealous about our own religion and avoid studying any other religions), then the vast majority of what the general population knows about Mormons, or any non-highly publicized religion, then, comes from what we "learn" on TV. So the danger of branding the religion becomes greater.
Ultimately, though, his religious affiliation would theoretically not make a difference in the business world, so religion would be irrelavant (much like there wasn't much said about the religious affiliation of Ken Lay, the Enron guy). The only time America seems to (openly) care about the religion of an individual is if they're a religious extremist or a politician. How's that for separation of church and state?
Profiling!!
Yes, especially given that you'd have to be in a pool full of water.. That's not usually good on cars.
Implicit declaration?! Didn't realize he should declare his ownership in the appropriate .h file as well?!
Bingo!
We are playing Buzzword Bingo, right?
Eh, sort of. They're called "ThinkCenters" now. Mainly IBM is pushing servers and laptops.
The one thing IBM loves to tout is their ability to provide a complete solution, from the servers to the users' computers (be they desktops or laptops). Eventually, they'll likely want to push a full on Linux integration. But part of their end-to-end solution is installation, network configuration and then system support. Formal support for Linux is just not that great right now.
In the future, as it becomes more commoditized, likely that will improve. Right now, more people use Windows and Windows "support technicians" (read: helpdesk monkeys) are cheap. Linux support technicians are not. So this would require a major shift in the helpdesk to either invest in training your support people on Linux or dropping the cash to hire a team of Linux support agents. Helpdesks do not generate a cash flow. Investments in helpdesks are usually as small as possible, as infrequently as possible.
Heck it could even be set up so that someone who sends a lot of mail could purchase a package that includes X number of free emails per month.
I'd think that would be extremely difficult to effectively set up, logistically, though, and the business world would likely (understandably) have an absolute fit if the idea were ever seriously considered.
Then again, maybe it'd save enough money in terms of bandwidth that it would be worth it.
Now that's quality legislation.
Everyone has been saying this since this whole ordeal started. It hasn't happened yet, and everyone keeps saying it will. That kind of makes me nervous. I personally don't think SCO has a leg to stand on, but my opinion doesn't much matter. I really do wish IBM would get off their duff and deliver this much anticipated bitch slap already and put a stop to this crap.
mostly that I don't know as much as I think I do...
While I'm not anti-cursing (in most cases), I don't particularly find the frequent use of curse words (especially in "journalism") professional.
Think about it. You buy insurance so you can be compensated when/if your system is hit by a security bug.
Then, you're held responsible for your part in propigating a virus/worm if it happens, complete with fiscal responsibility.
So, you get hit with a virus and it propigates via your system. Your insurance takes care of your liability. But you had to file a claim so now your premium goes up.
Now, even the average, clueless user has a vested interest in keeping their system secure. And that interest is backed by the best possible motivator: Money.
Why not, right?
The bottom line being that OS Security is in the same arms race as Network Security and Digital Rights Management: for every update to every system, someone's going to try to find a way around it. There likely isn't a good way to make an operating system (ANY operating system) completely secure, without lobotomizing it. Just like you're never going to make your car completely secure from thieves unless you make it unusable, and even then "completely" probably goes a bit far.
So who do we hold responsible? Surely the perpitrators of said attacks, just like we hold thieves liable. But thieves are sometimes quite hard to catch and hackers seem to be even more difficult. If we continue this comparason, the next logical step is Insurance. Maybe State Farm or Allstate should start offering PC Security insurance wherein, for a small monthly fee (or large, in the case of corporations), you can be compensated for damage done to your system or the time it takes you to restore your system post attack, as long as you can establish that you took the necessary steps to protect your system, which means, in part, applying patches in a timely manner.
And maybe, instead of overlooking cluelessness, it really could be punished. If someone's car gets stolen but they left the doors open and the keys in it, while we don't excuse them completely, we usually do say "well, wise up.. that'll teach you." But in the case of a worm, your unpatched system can go on to do damage to other systems, in which case you are (partially) responsible for the propagation of a damaging and costly problem. So you have to take responsibility for the damage you caused, just like I have to take responsibility for the damage I do with my car, even if that's as a direct result of a vandal, say.. cutting my brake line. It's still my fault. That's why I have insurance. Is there anyone from an insurance company reading? Do you see a money maker here??
This is definitely not a one-for-one comparason and I personally feel the computer security situation is far more complex than the car security bit. And just like car makers issue recalls and face liability issues for glaring oversights in manufacturing, I certainly think OS makers should face the same thing. But you're crazy if you think Microsoft makes unsecure software on purpose. Should they do more testing? Aboslutely, but how many applications really get tested as extensively as they should? But, people point out security problems, and sometimes, MS decides to fix them. Hey great. Then it's up to the user to apply the patch. This system is at least workable, so long as they don't put people in jail for discussing security holes. And while I'm ranting, if we're gonna do that, shouldn't we start putting the Consumer Reports people in jail for doing and releasing testing that leads to the indentification of a defect resulting in a recall? I mean really! Lets have some equality!
Alright, I'm done. Really.
If priacy is such a huge problem because it's so easy for someone to quickly and conveniently download a decent quality movie from the web, why doesn't someone slap together a business plan and create a cost based service out of exactly that?
The RIAA may suck, but at least they're giving that a shot with a few new services they're trying out for music. Granted, most of those services suck, but it's at least a step in the right direction.
If people are so willing to download movies all the time, why don't those fools at the MPAA simply make the movies available in a comparable environment (e.g. ease of download, quality of picture) at a reasonable price? This would be a much more constructive outlet than trying to cast all file-swappers as thieves.
Ever thought of inserting a subtle "h" in your acronym to make the public like you more? You could recruit Eric Estrada and ride around on motorcycles with 80's mucis in the background and use cool ID codes like W3 5UK. Seriously, you should consider it.