I remember playing text adventure games on a Commodore Vic 20 where you'd find leaflets and reading them presented you with an ad for another game by the company. Granted, this wasn't an unrelated company looking for product placement, but it was still advertising within the game.
No problem, I suppose I should do more than just skim that page now;) I learned about Sapir-Whorf in an intro Anthropology course and was just looking for a quick reference to what it was about.
Glad you enjoyed it.
That's entirely possible, but I suspect that the result is the same. A given group of people do not feel any need for a given word, let's say.. "Dutch". These people encounter Dutch people on occasion, but just refer to them, and all non-natives, as foreigners. The end result may very well be that they don't perceive cultural differences between a Dutchman (is that right?) and and Englishman, because to the people concerned, they are both just "foreigners."
This idea has been around for a while, originally, insofar as I know, called the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. It's neat to see it strongly confirmed in some capacity, though.
And of course they were the ones that jumpstarted the online music craze between iPod and iTunes.
That's a lot like claiming Al Gore invented the internet.
Apple didn't jumpstart the online music craze, if anything, Napster did. Apple may have done a great deal to legitimize it and turn it into a viable distribution method for Big Music, but I strongly disagree with the idea that Apple jump started it.
I don't see how this article offers anything new to the discussion. Linux is projected to have a 6% desktop market share by 2006. Is that really impressive?
Microsoft considers Linux and other Open/Free software a key business risk. We already knew that, hence the onslaught of FUD generated about Linux by Redmond (Linux is like cancer, the TCO of Linux/Free solutions is higher than MS solutions, etc. etc.)
As an OSS advocate, I enjoy hearing about people's success stories with Linux, but I hardly consider them news worthy. At best, this is preaching to the choir, at worst the article grants license to flame.
Perhaps by about 90 percent, they mean 92%? Thus resolving the missing 2%. About can mean above or below, generally this isn't the case though as some people like to put forth the biggest number possible, but it is a thought.
Or, maybe the execs bring in that extra 2% by whoring themselves out? Hard to say with the way business is done these days.
That is a very good article, thank you for sharing it. I think the point on having to risk losing/gaining real value (be it money, or some other sort of goods/services with real value) to have an accurate prediction is an important issue for these sorts of markets to work.
You make a very valid point, the two ideas are in fact one in the same.
I really thought DARPA's PAM project was a novel and perhaps useful tool. However, I think the acceptance of this idea, yet the rejection of PAM comes down to a few key points:
In this case, we're using a market to predict the behavior of investors in a different market (ultimately attempting to predict how the *parent* market behaves, if you'll permit such bastardized terminology.) This idea does not seem terribly radical to most people, maybe a little odd, but not radically different.
PAM would have used a market to predict events most people consider unsavoury, this doesn't sit well with some people (gambling on terrorism is evil, etc. etc.)
DARPA may have proposed PAM too soon. The terrorist attacks were/are still to close at hand, the War in Iraq, the threat of another attack in the near future, etc. Perhaps if they had waited longer before proposing the idea, it wouldn't have met with such bad press. [Pure conjecture]
Many people do not understand how markets work. They have a general misunderstanding of it, perhaps even a fear of it. No matter how strong the evidence is supporting the idea that such markets can (sometimes/often?) predict future events, those who don't understand markets will probably tend to be against the idea. If the idea had been shared with fewer people, and then slowly explained to others, perhaps it would have been successful. [Again, pure conjecture]
Ultimately, I would have liked to see the DARPA project take off, and maybe one day down the road, we will see it rehashed. I feel it certainly provides a better warning system than an arbitrary color coding system that never seems to dip far below "Panic Struck Plaid" these days.
No problem, the structure of my English often leaves a bit to be desired, so it's helpful to receive input like this. I apologize if I initially seemed a bit off-putting, and thanks for the time you spent clarifying my mistake.
- Ian
Ah, ok...I now see your point. And you're right, from your stance, it does seem that I was arguing that it had neither, thus I chose Linux. I think in the future, I should just post in a symbolic logic format as to avoid this sort of situation again.
Also, I don't know if you are the same person who replied to my original post, but if you are, there is another point that I would like to clarify in my post. At the very end, I made the statement "And for me, a poor, fresh out of college, person, the better value is Linux," which implies something I did not intend to. After re-reading it, the statement may suggest that Linux is the better value for a poor, fresh out of college person, and that is not necessarily the case. I should have just said "For me, the better value is Linux," instead of adding some description to it which suggests it's the better value for a broader class of people. This statement does perhaps lend some credit to the zealot claim.
Thanks for the discussion and clarificationis.
- Ian
As off topic is this is now, no, you're wrong. Think of it in terms of logic:
Microsoft must be both reasonably price and reasonably secure for me to buy it.
If it fails one condition, I do not buy it. It fails the condition of reasonably priced. Thus, I do not buy it.
Proof:
Let A = "I buy", B = "Secure", C = "Cheap".
A -> B ^ C (given statement)
~(B^C) -> ~A (contrapositive)
~B v ~C -> ~A (DeMorgan's Thm.)
Thus, if it is either not secure, or not cheap, I do not buy it. It is not cheap (in my terms of cheap), therefore, I do not buy it.
QED and such.
Which most people have no interest in seeing in the first place.
That's fine, as I explicitly stated at the end of my post, the post was merely my answer to Mr. Taylor's question. I do not speak for everyone, nor do I claim to. I like having the source because it means even if Linux were to somehow vanish, I could still modify the source to suit my changing needs.
How many choices of a simple text editor do you need.
As I stated in what you quoted "I have more choices than I need," therefore, I do not *need* all of these choices. But, I do like having them. Ultimately, my choice in text editor does not come with most Linux distributions by default, but I still like having more choices than I need. Again, I do not speak for everyone, and I do not claim that the "more choices than you need" is a winning strategy for any OS/Desktop Environment vendor. I merely claim that this is what I prefer.
As for reasonably priced and reasonably secure Windows is both. 2k and XP are both fairly cheap (free for most people with computer knowledge as they pirate it)
So, I should give up a product I can obtain freely, which suits my needs, in favor of another product that may suit my needs, but to get it at the right price, I have to do so illegally? I have as little interest in pirating software as I do in purchasing said software for $100-$200.
Also how can you say widows in insecure when nearly all the "virusus" are some variation of getting users to run malicious code.
This is purely straw man, I never once claimed Windows was insecure, or even less secure than Linux. I stated my needs: I want a reasonably priced OS with reasonable security. Windows 2000 meets the second requirement, but it fails to meet the first, hence, it does not satisfy my needs in that area.
You sounded like a zealot. Not in the sense of pushign Linux but in the sense that you are usign it not because it is the right tool for the job but rathe rbecause it is not windows.
I am using the right tool for the job, it's cost effective, it provides all of the functionality I need, it works for me. It provides a stable development environment for my work. Windows very likely does, too. But, it just is not cost effective for me. And the added bonuses of using a Microsoft product are not enough for me to justify the cost difference.
I accept that a fair bit of your post is your own personal preference as well, and that is fine. However, please do not put words in my mouth. In particular, stating that I called windows "insecure" when I did not, and suggesting that I'm using Linux because it's not MS, when in fact I stated a few of the reasons I use Linux in the original post, none of which were "Because M$ is teh sux0r!" or anything of that sort.
"Tell us what Linux does that we can't do. Don't tell us you're deploying Linux just because you can."
A complete GNU/Linux (henceforth: Linux) distribution provides me with source for free (or at a reasonable cost if you buy cds from the distributor), Microsoft does not.
Most linux distributions provide multiple choices for window managers/desktop environments, Microsoft gives me explorer (though Litestep and BB4Win are available to download).
In general, with Linux, I have more choices than I need for many things
Granted, some will argue too much choice is bad for the getting Linux on the desktop. That may be, but Microsoft, specifically Mr. Taylor, asked a question, I provided my answer, which does not necessarily represent the views/opinions of others.
If Microsoft can provide a reasonably priced, reasonably secure, distribution/version of Windows that comes with such choices, or if a 3rd party vendor started creating Windows distributions along these lines, I would go with what I felt to be a better value, just as I am right now. And for me, a poor, fresh out of college, person, the better value is Linux.
I agree entirely, the Amazon example is exaclty what I was commenting on. I received a couple of replies, as you seem to be aware, along the lines of "patriot act and microsoft still exist," neither of which are in our *sphere of influence*, in my opinion, and for the very reasons you have written. However, when dealing with companies like Amazon, Pricewatch, and other retailers/advertisers with online forums and rating systems, we can invoke change through slashdotting.
I'm done preaching to the choir now, just wanted to let you know that your response is exactly the kind of thing I was originally referring to.
\begin{kneejerk}
As a few have already pointed out, such a system cannot be effectively enforced. Why do we need more pointless legislation like this?
\end{kneejerk}
All that aside, this is always going to be a problem when data that describes the
document
is written by the original document author. Meta data, ultimately, is only useful to the person who one who authors it. No one should be regulating such data, because it shouldn't really be trusted in the first place. Search engines should, and many do, weigh the websites based upon their actual content. Not the description of the content described by the author of the content. In peer-review systems, keywords and abstracts can be verified, thus promoting their correctness, such is obviously not the case on the web.
Penguin didn't make the suggestion that Katie Jones should donate her domain, Parry Aftab, claiming to be working with Katie Tarbox, suggested Katie Jones donate the domain. (See "I own the domain name katie.com and have done since 1996" on katie.com)
What Penguin did was a bit inappropriate, but they neither offered to buy the domain nor asked for it to be donated.
If the slashdot community can get a publisher to rename a book in a matter of days (assuming of course that this community was largely responsible), maybe we can be harnassed for more than bringing webservers to their knees.
I also wonder how much of this was a result of the amazon.com reviews/rankings, and so on? If it was significant, slashdotting places that provide open reviews may be a viable way to instigate change in businesses whose practices we find questionable.
Now, if Katie Tarbox can be dissuaded from using the name 'Katie.com' for her upcoming school lecture series as well, Katie Jones may finally get her weblife back.
Actually, they almost certainly did know the domain was taken. Originally, the book was to be titled "girl.com", but according to the Katie Jones' open letter, girl.com at the time was a hardcore porn site. Seems to be a search page of some sort now. Anyway, I would not be surprised to find out that this was a deliberate move by the company. They knew katie.com was taken by someone else, but it was a private individual who had not registered any trademark on the domain name, and it's apparently a more desireable name than katiet.com (Katie Tarbox's actual website), so they probably figured they could muscle it out of her.
Bruce Schneier touched on this very subject in his September 2003 cryptogram in response to Nachi (or Blast.D), you can find his original article in the cryptogram archives.
Automatically installing code on a user's system without their consent is never a good idea. Virally propegated code, no matter the intent, still generates network traffic, just because the payload is different doesn't mean the virus/worm/whathaveyou isn't adding to the problem of conjested networks. And as someone else pointed out, even if the 'white hat' programmer has good intentions, that doesn't mean they won't make mistakes in their code which could have adverse effects on the systems they are attempting to patch.
While I don't think users should have to directly interface with security protocols/techniques, I do think they should be aware of them. If they are made fully aware of the damages that can be done to them, they're more likely to patch, or back away from the internet in fear, either way, there is a reduction in exploitable hosts.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember playing text adventure games on a Commodore Vic 20 where you'd find leaflets and reading them presented you with an ad for another game by the company. Granted, this wasn't an unrelated company looking for product placement, but it was still advertising within the game.
Thanks much, it is very interesting stuff.
I appreciate the link, I wasn't sure what word use would get proper results.
That's pretty interesting. Do you have a reference for this handy? If not, I could google it.
No problem, I suppose I should do more than just skim that page now ;) I learned about Sapir-Whorf in an intro Anthropology course and was just looking for a quick reference to what it was about.
Glad you enjoyed it.
That's entirely possible, but I suspect that the result is the same. A given group of people do not feel any need for a given word, let's say.. "Dutch". These people encounter Dutch people on occasion, but just refer to them, and all non-natives, as foreigners. The end result may very well be that they don't perceive cultural differences between a Dutchman (is that right?) and and Englishman, because to the people concerned, they are both just "foreigners."
This idea has been around for a while, originally, insofar as I know, called the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. It's neat to see it strongly confirmed in some capacity, though.
And of course they were the ones that jumpstarted the online music craze between iPod and iTunes.
That's a lot like claiming Al Gore invented the internet.
Apple didn't jumpstart the online music craze, if anything, Napster did. Apple may have done a great deal to legitimize it and turn it into a viable distribution method for Big Music, but I strongly disagree with the idea that Apple jump started it.
The term "Shitcock" comes to mind...
I don't see how this article offers anything new to the discussion. Linux is projected to have a 6% desktop market share by 2006. Is that really impressive?
Microsoft considers Linux and other Open/Free software a key business risk. We already knew that, hence the onslaught of FUD generated about Linux by Redmond (Linux is like cancer, the TCO of Linux/Free solutions is higher than MS solutions, etc. etc.)
As an OSS advocate, I enjoy hearing about people's success stories with Linux, but I hardly consider them news worthy. At best, this is preaching to the choir, at worst the article grants license to flame.
"... has made about 90 percent ..."
Perhaps by about 90 percent, they mean 92%? Thus resolving the missing 2%. About can mean above or below, generally this isn't the case though as some people like to put forth the biggest number possible, but it is a thought.
Or, maybe the execs bring in that extra 2% by whoring themselves out? Hard to say with the way business is done these days.
That is a very good article, thank you for sharing it. I think the point on having to risk losing/gaining real value (be it money, or some other sort of goods/services with real value) to have an accurate prediction is an important issue for these sorts of markets to work.
I really thought DARPA's PAM project was a novel and perhaps useful tool. However, I think the acceptance of this idea, yet the rejection of PAM comes down to a few key points:
Ultimately, I would have liked to see the DARPA project take off, and maybe one day down the road, we will see it rehashed. I feel it certainly provides a better warning system than an arbitrary color coding system that never seems to dip far below "Panic Struck Plaid" these days.
No problem, the structure of my English often leaves a bit to be desired, so it's helpful to receive input like this. I apologize if I initially seemed a bit off-putting, and thanks for the time you spent clarifying my mistake. - Ian
Ah, ok...I now see your point. And you're right, from your stance, it does seem that I was arguing that it had neither, thus I chose Linux. I think in the future, I should just post in a symbolic logic format as to avoid this sort of situation again.
Also, I don't know if you are the same person who replied to my original post, but if you are, there is another point that I would like to clarify in my post. At the very end, I made the statement "And for me, a poor, fresh out of college, person, the better value is Linux," which implies something I did not intend to. After re-reading it, the statement may suggest that Linux is the better value for a poor, fresh out of college person, and that is not necessarily the case. I should have just said "For me, the better value is Linux," instead of adding some description to it which suggests it's the better value for a broader class of people. This statement does perhaps lend some credit to the zealot claim.
Thanks for the discussion and clarificationis.
- Ian
As off topic is this is now, no, you're wrong. Think of it in terms of logic:
Microsoft must be both reasonably price and reasonably secure for me to buy it.
If it fails one condition, I do not buy it. It fails the condition of reasonably priced. Thus, I do not buy it.
Proof:
Let A = "I buy", B = "Secure", C = "Cheap".
A -> B ^ C (given statement)
~(B^C) -> ~A (contrapositive)
~B v ~C -> ~A (DeMorgan's Thm.)
Thus, if it is either not secure, or not cheap, I do not buy it. It is not cheap (in my terms of cheap), therefore, I do not buy it.
QED and such.
A brief rebuttle:
Which most people have no interest in seeing in the first place.
That's fine, as I explicitly stated at the end of my post, the post was merely my answer to Mr. Taylor's question. I do not speak for everyone, nor do I claim to. I like having the source because it means even if Linux were to somehow vanish, I could still modify the source to suit my changing needs.
How many choices of a simple text editor do you need.
As I stated in what you quoted "I have more choices than I need," therefore, I do not *need* all of these choices. But, I do like having them. Ultimately, my choice in text editor does not come with most Linux distributions by default, but I still like having more choices than I need. Again, I do not speak for everyone, and I do not claim that the "more choices than you need" is a winning strategy for any OS/Desktop Environment vendor. I merely claim that this is what I prefer.
As for reasonably priced and reasonably secure Windows is both. 2k and XP are both fairly cheap (free for most people with computer knowledge as they pirate it)
So, I should give up a product I can obtain freely, which suits my needs, in favor of another product that may suit my needs, but to get it at the right price, I have to do so illegally? I have as little interest in pirating software as I do in purchasing said software for $100-$200.
Also how can you say widows in insecure when nearly all the "virusus" are some variation of getting users to run malicious code.
This is purely straw man, I never once claimed Windows was insecure, or even less secure than Linux. I stated my needs: I want a reasonably priced OS with reasonable security. Windows 2000 meets the second requirement, but it fails to meet the first, hence, it does not satisfy my needs in that area.
You sounded like a zealot. Not in the sense of pushign Linux but in the sense that you are usign it not because it is the right tool for the job but rathe rbecause it is not windows.
I am using the right tool for the job, it's cost effective, it provides all of the functionality I need, it works for me. It provides a stable development environment for my work. Windows very likely does, too. But, it just is not cost effective for me. And the added bonuses of using a Microsoft product are not enough for me to justify the cost difference.
I accept that a fair bit of your post is your own personal preference as well, and that is fine. However, please do not put words in my mouth. In particular, stating that I called windows "insecure" when I did not, and suggesting that I'm using Linux because it's not MS, when in fact I stated a few of the reasons I use Linux in the original post, none of which were "Because M$ is teh sux0r!" or anything of that sort.
- A complete GNU/Linux (henceforth: Linux) distribution provides me with source for free (or at a reasonable cost if you buy cds from the distributor), Microsoft does not.
- Most linux distributions provide multiple choices for window managers/desktop environments, Microsoft gives me explorer (though Litestep and BB4Win are available to download).
- In general, with Linux, I have more choices than I need for many things
Granted, some will argue too much choice is bad for the getting Linux on the desktop. That may be, but Microsoft, specifically Mr. Taylor, asked a question, I provided my answer, which does not necessarily represent the views/opinions of others.If Microsoft can provide a reasonably priced, reasonably secure, distribution/version of Windows that comes with such choices, or if a 3rd party vendor started creating Windows distributions along these lines, I would go with what I felt to be a better value, just as I am right now. And for me, a poor, fresh out of college, person, the better value is Linux.
I agree entirely, the Amazon example is exaclty what I was commenting on. I received a couple of replies, as you seem to be aware, along the lines of "patriot act and microsoft still exist," neither of which are in our *sphere of influence*, in my opinion, and for the very reasons you have written.
However, when dealing with companies like Amazon, Pricewatch, and other retailers/advertisers with online forums and rating systems, we can invoke change through slashdotting.
I'm done preaching to the choir now, just wanted to let you know that your response is exactly the kind of thing I was originally referring to.
Penguin didn't make the suggestion that Katie Jones should donate her domain, Parry Aftab, claiming to be working with Katie Tarbox, suggested Katie Jones donate the domain. (See "I own the domain name katie.com and have done since 1996" on katie.com)
What Penguin did was a bit inappropriate, but they neither offered to buy the domain nor asked for it to be donated.
If the slashdot community can get a publisher to rename a book in a matter of days (assuming of course that this community was largely responsible), maybe we can be harnassed for more than bringing webservers to their knees.
I also wonder how much of this was a result of the amazon.com reviews/rankings, and so on? If it was significant, slashdotting places that provide open reviews may be a viable way to instigate change in businesses whose practices we find questionable.
Now, if Katie Tarbox can be dissuaded from using the name 'Katie.com' for her upcoming school lecture series as well, Katie Jones may finally get her weblife back.
Actually, they almost certainly did know the domain was taken. Originally, the book was to be titled "girl.com", but according to the Katie Jones' open letter, girl.com at the time was a hardcore porn site. Seems to be a search page of some sort now. Anyway, I would not be surprised to find out that this was a deliberate move by the company. They knew katie.com was taken by someone else, but it was a private individual who had not registered any trademark on the domain name, and it's apparently a more desireable name than katiet.com (Katie Tarbox's actual website), so they probably figured they could muscle it out of her.
Thank you for posting this. This article should be linked in the news post itself.
Bruce Schneier touched on this very subject in his September 2003 cryptogram in response to Nachi (or Blast.D), you can find his original article in the cryptogram archives.
Automatically installing code on a user's system without their consent is never a good idea. Virally propegated code, no matter the intent, still generates network traffic, just because the payload is different doesn't mean the virus/worm/whathaveyou isn't adding to the problem of conjested networks. And as someone else pointed out, even if the 'white hat' programmer has good intentions, that doesn't mean they won't make mistakes in their code which could have adverse effects on the systems they are attempting to patch.
While I don't think users should have to directly interface with security protocols/techniques, I do think they should be aware of them. If they are made fully aware of the damages that can be done to them, they're more likely to patch, or back away from the internet in fear, either way, there is a reduction in exploitable hosts.