When using Google to check your spelling, don't look at the number of pages; rather, look at the number of results returned. "Unproffesional" only gets about 3,500 hits, while "unprofessional" yields 750,000 results. If a fairly common word only gives you a shade under 4,000 hits, you can be pretty sure it isn't spelled correctly.
Also, you can try using Google's "define:" directive. Enter your query as follows:
define:unproffesional
and it will tell you there are no definitions found. That is usually a good hint that you haven't spelled the word right.:)
I love reading comments that refer to potential concerns about Trusted Computing as FUD. Some of them even try to draw a parallel to the anti-GPL FUD that gets spread around.
Let's take a close look at the situation though. No one forces you to license your software under the GPL. There is even a special license (the LGPL) that allows you to write open source libraries without requiring that people who use them also release their code under the GPL. Now, we can debate all day long about the philosophical implications of "freedom" and GPL vs. public domain licensing, or whether software should be licensed at all, but none of this is remotely comparable to the potential dangers of Trusted Computing.
As has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, Trusted Computing refers to trusting code and data (i.e. code and data must be digitally signed before the CPU has access to it).
The article summary above indicates that this is a hardware vendor push since it seems to be originating from manufacturers, not Microsoft. However, let's take a look at the list: IBM, Dell, and HP. Now, which ubiquitous operating system runs on all three of these platforms? That's right. It's MS Windows.
The point is that you and I are not privvy to any clandestine meetings, backroom deals, or secret phone conversations. None of us have any idea about what's really going on. Microsoft could have just as easily told the three major PC makers that they are about to add DRM to their operating system, so there had better be some platforms capable of running it when it hits the shelves.
I notice a few people don't seem worried about this blatent attempt to force us all into using DRM hardware. "You can still use whatever software you want!" they say. Any of you who have owned Dells know that the MS Windows install CDs that come with the PC only work on Dells, and sometimes not even different models. Given that Microsoft is a software monopoly, and IBM, Dell, and HP produce the vast majority of PC hardware in the world, why would it surprise you in the least that they would eventually add vendor verification to their hardware to prevent you from running anything but MS Windows?
Microsoft doesn't want competition. They want small start-ups that they can buy to add software to their list of products (DOS, Basic, DirectX, Excel, Visio, Internet Explorer... the list goes on). After that, they can shut out all other competitors in that area. If they can enforce this with hardware-based digital signatures, it would make them very happy.
Now, it wouldn't be a "monopoly" because they'd have means for software and content producers to apply for signature keys, but it would naturally cost money (probably lots of it) and developers would have to be registered with some kind of central authority, sort of like Verisign. Shortly after this, the Internet as we know it will be "owned" by media companies. They produce the content, they control who can use it, how, and how often, and they can lock out anyone they like. How great would it be if all the independant musicians that are supposed to find freedom and equality on the Internet were now kept from distributing their music because they couldn't pay the RIAA licensing fees that would allow TC-based computers to play their songs? It would be a panacea for the record execs, plus put an end to all this talk of the recording industry's dying business model.
These companies are interested in one thing: increasing profit margins. They do not care about independent artists, open source, free speech, anti-trust laws (insofar as they will break them if they can get away with it), or you. Don't think for a second that any of this is actually in your best interest as a computer user. If Microsoft was concerned about you, they would have fixed the security holes, increased stability and usability, improved performance, and stopped the ridiculous practice of forced upgrades. The worst part is that they are not just preventing you from consuming vapid "pop culture", but creating a mechanism that could potentially lock down all available hardware so all you are able to access is the drivel they want to shove down your throat! If you are blind enough to trust them, you deserve what you get.
The big problem is the origin of those studies. The second book I mentioned in my previous post does a great job of showing the lengths industries will go through to essentially purchase study results that are favorable to them. Flat-out payoffs, shoddy statistics, very carefully selecting samples that don't exhibit undesired results... it's all an incredible scam.
The rest of us are left with the impression that there is some kind of scientifically legitimate disagreement. There's a difference between valid science and junk science, certainly, but a lot of the junk seems to come from corporate sponsors with a lot of money to lose.
Check out the following books for a great introduction to exactly how public relations companies are used by industries, companies, and even politicians to cover up the dirty secrets they don't want you to know about.
"If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, his reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver," said David Strayer, a University of Utah psychology professor and principal author of the study. "It's like instant aging."
This is the truth! I answered my cell phone in the car and immediately plowed into a farmers' market.
A few of my co-workers and I participated in an experiment like this at our office where they examined our productivity as a function of room temperature.
It turns out that at 0 K, all activity came to a complete halt.
I note a couple of replies have ripped this to shreds, but this concept is actually quite feasible.
Instead of relying on the laser engine or inkjet head (with its limited DPI) to print the barcode, it would be fairly simple to have the printer essentially stamp it (impact style) onto each sheet as it passes through. Make the stamp sufficiently small, or perhaps use a special ultraviolet toner, and you now have a way to trace every sheet of paper that comes out.
Come to think of it, the impact itself should be sufficient to track the paper. There's no need for ink when the crushed paper fibers will work just as well. If the mark is small enough and distributed all over the document, even crumpling the paper won't help. Just pop the sheet into a high-resolution topographical scanner and voila! The impacted serial number will stand out in bas relief.
The constituents are supposed to use an electronic, paperless voting system to support someone who is against... electronic,... paperless... voting... systems??
The evolution of the modern human breast seems to have began with the development of walking upright. Before this development, the primary attribute on which potential mates were judged was the buttocks.
I'm so cynical I have a tendency to view this as something originating with a wink and a nudge from a political party or supporting organization.
You're not the only one... I don't believe anything anymore, and I get more cynical with each passing moment.
Maybe the American political process would be better off if everyone just assumed the Powers That Be were lying to them with every breath. The resulting interpretation would probably be much closer to the truth than the bullshit spewed at us from people whose jobs depend on convincing us that Things Are Looking Up.
A. Microsoft does everything it can to offer the best possible value for customers' software investments. We believe that the product's features and functionality, along with continuous improvements, are more than enough to justify its price.
Truly fascinating, especially considering that Windows doesn't come with even close to half the functionality of a free linux-based system.
I know some people think open source advocates bash Microsoft because it's cool. (Personally, it's because I despise their business practices.) Also, many people somehow think that all open source advocates think linux is perfect. (It isn't. There are a number of flaws that should be addressed.)
However my linux system comes with a stable kernel, a choice of GUI desktop systems, editors, compilers, interpreters, office suites, productivity enhancement packages, games, etc., NONE of which cost a dime. Windows costs a significant amount of money and comes with... umm... notepad, MS Paint, freecell, and Spider? Oh wait... can't forget minesweeper and wordpad and the few (largely useless) system tools in there. Not much along the way of making the computer very useful, though.
MS Windows is a good value for the money? Don't make me laugh.
The article mentions speech recognition, but not comprehension. You cannot take pure recognition and immediately make a superhelpful information kiosk or natural language query system out of it.
Such an informational kiosk could be made just as easily with current speech recognition technology considering how limited the interface would have to be. (A handful of phrases, such as "I'm lost", then replying to a voice prompt with the location you're looking for, at which point the computer can do a quick lookup on mapquest and read you the directions. Nothing a good couple of developers couldn't hammer out in a few weeks.)
The new tech research seems to simply be a way of taking current capabilities and moving them from software into hardware, which provides some speed and mobility gains, but no new functionality.
Considering the size such a reconigition device might be, perhaps they could drop a chip in my remote key fob that understands the phrase "Where the F*** are my ****** keys?!?!?", at which point the device will chirp, or possibly play an insulting message questioning my heritage or legitimacy.
Slashdot Mirror
When using Google to check your spelling, don't look at the number of pages; rather, look at the number of results returned. "Unproffesional" only gets about 3,500 hits, while "unprofessional" yields 750,000 results. If a fairly common word only gives you a shade under 4,000 hits, you can be pretty sure it isn't spelled correctly.
:)
Also, you can try using Google's "define:" directive. Enter your query as follows:
define:unproffesional
and it will tell you there are no definitions found. That is usually a good hint that you haven't spelled the word right.
I love reading comments that refer to potential concerns about Trusted Computing as FUD. Some of them even try to draw a parallel to the anti-GPL FUD that gets spread around.
Let's take a close look at the situation though. No one forces you to license your software under the GPL. There is even a special license (the LGPL) that allows you to write open source libraries without requiring that people who use them also release their code under the GPL. Now, we can debate all day long about the philosophical implications of "freedom" and GPL vs. public domain licensing, or whether software should be licensed at all, but none of this is remotely comparable to the potential dangers of Trusted Computing.
As has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, Trusted Computing refers to trusting code and data (i.e. code and data must be digitally signed before the CPU has access to it).
The article summary above indicates that this is a hardware vendor push since it seems to be originating from manufacturers, not Microsoft. However, let's take a look at the list: IBM, Dell, and HP. Now, which ubiquitous operating system runs on all three of these platforms? That's right. It's MS Windows.
The point is that you and I are not privvy to any clandestine meetings, backroom deals, or secret phone conversations. None of us have any idea about what's really going on. Microsoft could have just as easily told the three major PC makers that they are about to add DRM to their operating system, so there had better be some platforms capable of running it when it hits the shelves.
I notice a few people don't seem worried about this blatent attempt to force us all into using DRM hardware. "You can still use whatever software you want!" they say. Any of you who have owned Dells know that the MS Windows install CDs that come with the PC only work on Dells, and sometimes not even different models. Given that Microsoft is a software monopoly, and IBM, Dell, and HP produce the vast majority of PC hardware in the world, why would it surprise you in the least that they would eventually add vendor verification to their hardware to prevent you from running anything but MS Windows?
Microsoft doesn't want competition. They want small start-ups that they can buy to add software to their list of products (DOS, Basic, DirectX, Excel, Visio, Internet Explorer... the list goes on). After that, they can shut out all other competitors in that area. If they can enforce this with hardware-based digital signatures, it would make them very happy.
Now, it wouldn't be a "monopoly" because they'd have means for software and content producers to apply for signature keys, but it would naturally cost money (probably lots of it) and developers would have to be registered with some kind of central authority, sort of like Verisign. Shortly after this, the Internet as we know it will be "owned" by media companies. They produce the content, they control who can use it, how, and how often, and they can lock out anyone they like. How great would it be if all the independant musicians that are supposed to find freedom and equality on the Internet were now kept from distributing their music because they couldn't pay the RIAA licensing fees that would allow TC-based computers to play their songs? It would be a panacea for the record execs, plus put an end to all this talk of the recording industry's dying business model.
These companies are interested in one thing: increasing profit margins. They do not care about independent artists, open source, free speech, anti-trust laws (insofar as they will break them if they can get away with it), or you. Don't think for a second that any of this is actually in your best interest as a computer user. If Microsoft was concerned about you, they would have fixed the security holes, increased stability and usability, improved performance, and stopped the ridiculous practice of forced upgrades. The worst part is that they are not just preventing you from consuming vapid "pop culture", but creating a mechanism that could potentially lock down all available hardware so all you are able to access is the drivel they want to shove down your throat! If you are blind enough to trust them, you deserve what you get.
The big problem is the origin of those studies. The second book I mentioned in my previous post does a great job of showing the lengths industries will go through to essentially purchase study results that are favorable to them. Flat-out payoffs, shoddy statistics, very carefully selecting samples that don't exhibit undesired results... it's all an incredible scam.
The rest of us are left with the impression that there is some kind of scientifically legitimate disagreement. There's a difference between valid science and junk science, certainly, but a lot of the junk seems to come from corporate sponsors with a lot of money to lose.
Of course, there's always these guys...
Milloy is an industry shill.
Check out the following books for a great introduction to exactly how public relations companies are used by industries, companies, and even politicians to cover up the dirty secrets they don't want you to know about.
Toxic Sludge Is Good for You!: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry
Trust Us We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future
Intel says that hardware exploiting the advance might begin appearing at the end of the decade.
And software exploiting said hardware will appear about 15 minutes later...
Maybe you're thinking of "Wedlock"?
it won't be as bad as the mascot from OpenOffice.org's Schools Project.
How to Destroy Your Computer, courtesy of Dan's Data
"If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, his reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver," said David Strayer, a University of Utah psychology professor and principal author of the study. "It's like instant aging."
This is the truth! I answered my cell phone in the car and immediately plowed into a farmers' market.
A few of my co-workers and I participated in an experiment like this at our office where they examined our productivity as a function of room temperature.
It turns out that at 0 K, all activity came to a complete halt.
I note a couple of replies have ripped this to shreds, but this concept is actually quite feasible.
Instead of relying on the laser engine or inkjet head (with its limited DPI) to print the barcode, it would be fairly simple to have the printer essentially stamp it (impact style) onto each sheet as it passes through. Make the stamp sufficiently small, or perhaps use a special ultraviolet toner, and you now have a way to trace every sheet of paper that comes out.
Come to think of it, the impact itself should be sufficient to track the paper. There's no need for ink when the crushed paper fibers will work just as well. If the mark is small enough and distributed all over the document, even crumpling the paper won't help. Just pop the sheet into a high-resolution topographical scanner and voila! The impacted serial number will stand out in bas relief.
I'm not sure if you can get one of these, but the design seems pretty protective.
We all know what to do!
Duck and cover!
The constituents are supposed to use an electronic, paperless voting system to support someone who is against... electronic,... paperless... voting... systems??
I think my brain is starting to bleed.
So, essentially you're saying Sir Mix-a-Lot is some sort of sub-human? Sounds about right...
Actually it was Vizzini who kept using that word, though I don't think it means what he thinks it means...
Here's a pic of the system in action.
You're not the only one... I don't believe anything anymore, and I get more cynical with each passing moment.
Maybe the American political process would be better off if everyone just assumed the Powers That Be were lying to them with every breath. The resulting interpretation would probably be much closer to the truth than the bullshit spewed at us from people whose jobs depend on convincing us that Things Are Looking Up.
Q. Why is Windows so expensive?
A. Microsoft does everything it can to offer the best possible value for customers' software investments. We believe that the product's features and functionality, along with continuous improvements, are more than enough to justify its price.
Truly fascinating, especially considering that Windows doesn't come with even close to half the functionality of a free linux-based system.
I know some people think open source advocates bash Microsoft because it's cool. (Personally, it's because I despise their business practices.) Also, many people somehow think that all open source advocates think linux is perfect. (It isn't. There are a number of flaws that should be addressed.)
However my linux system comes with a stable kernel, a choice of GUI desktop systems, editors, compilers, interpreters, office suites, productivity enhancement packages, games, etc., NONE of which cost a dime. Windows costs a significant amount of money and comes with... umm... notepad, MS Paint, freecell, and Spider? Oh wait... can't forget minesweeper and wordpad and the few (largely useless) system tools in there. Not much along the way of making the computer very useful, though.
MS Windows is a good value for the money? Don't make me laugh.
I hooked this up to a bowl of petunias and the speakers blurted out "Oh no, not again."
I figure if I knew why it did this I'd know a lot more about the nature of the universe.
Ha!!! I wish I could mod that up. :)
The company I used to work at is out to fix that...
The article mentions speech recognition, but not comprehension. You cannot take pure recognition and immediately make a superhelpful information kiosk or natural language query system out of it.
Such an informational kiosk could be made just as easily with current speech recognition technology considering how limited the interface would have to be. (A handful of phrases, such as "I'm lost", then replying to a voice prompt with the location you're looking for, at which point the computer can do a quick lookup on mapquest and read you the directions. Nothing a good couple of developers couldn't hammer out in a few weeks.)
The new tech research seems to simply be a way of taking current capabilities and moving them from software into hardware, which provides some speed and mobility gains, but no new functionality.
Considering the size such a reconigition device might be, perhaps they could drop a chip in my remote key fob that understands the phrase "Where the F*** are my ****** keys?!?!?", at which point the device will chirp, or possibly play an insulting message questioning my heritage or legitimacy.
The main thing that keeps me from using any PC-based email clients is the fact that I LOVE webmail.
Hell, I'm just waiting for someone to come up with a web-based browser. I'd switch in a heartbeat!
but how long did you have to search? I wouldn't have attempted such an ambitious undertaking myself, but I guess you were feeling lucky. ;)