I tried the software and it was an interesting idea, but the biggest problem with it is it never took off.
Well, perhaps a company with an established user base (one of instant messengers comes to mind) should try that. Of course, the privacy issues still remain valid. I would feel uneasy knowing that my client transmits the site URL to a central server.
Come on, reverse engineering is about the internals of a product - disassembling code, ripping off file formats, perhaps feeding test data to figure out the internal algorithms (although I don't know if this qualifies as reverse engineering). Now tell me what algorithms worth reverse engineering does ClearDDTS implement? I think that the OpenSource folks just created a good enough implementation of what your application does and it's very improbable that they needed any reverse engineering.
Now what do you (I assume you're still the same Anonymous Coward) mean by being against Open Source? Should it be forbidden to write free software? All ethical problems aside, how are you going to enforce that? To put it short: blame your company business model, not the ones who show that it is flawed. Well, I guess that the watchmakers felt the same way about electronic watches, scribes about the printing press, etc, etc.
Countless others are with you when you browse the web, some reading the same words at the same time, and yet you have no way of sensing their presence.
I remember a project that addressed this issue more directly - namely providing you with a client that allowed you to chat with folks visiting the same website. Cool idea, except for the privacy issues - the client of course had to report what websites you are visiting. The project was called 'gooey' or something similar. I guess it never took off. Well, they didn't have a Linux client, serves them right:-)
That's completely the responsibility of the college - if they don't like it or it's not legal they can't sign the contract.
Aren't the colleges (at least partially) funded by taxpayers money? Hiding contract details is hiding information on how public money is spent. Visit Transparency International to find out why this is bad.
Kernel strike - takes 10 turns, produces a kernel that combined with a set of GNU tools decreases enemy share on the server market.
E-mail - takes 0 turns, gives additional activity to every geek character on LKML. This multiplies by 100 if re-posted on Slashdot.
Flying - well, not yet.
You have no spirit of adventure. Suppose that I hit a toaster manufacturer page looking for some technical data on a toaster. It is a very thrilling experience to click the "products" link and have to choose between "wooden products", "red&yellowish products", "other products", "products other than all of the above" and "guess where this link will take you". The products->toasters->specific model path is just boring when compared to that.
Imagine if someone invented a device that you could plug into your MPAA-approved-but-we-don't-hate-them-this-week DVD player that would automatically cut out all 'objectionable' content from movies. The Slashdot community would be up in arms! So why are they so quick to defend the equivalent devices for games?
I think it's important to keep in mind that you're suggesting for isn't the "right" way to do things...
I am aware that there is no "right way" to do things in UI. I am merely suggesting that what most applications have now is far from good for most users (especially those that currently don't use linux - that was the point of the article). The popular "hostile entry form" pattern (let the user try-and-err what fields are required, what values are acceptable, etc.) is definitely such an example. The "save" button may be more controversial. I definitely want a "save" button in the text editor that edits my system configuration files. I don't want to go into disputing whether a set of text files + an editor is the best UI for configuration, though, especially if one believes that linux should get usable for a non-tech user.
And of course I am all for OS/APP/UI/WidgetSet separation as long as these elements are freely interchangeable. I dislike the idea of "Gnome-7.0 with foo widget set 3.1.15 and bar window manager 1.2.13 only" applications. And of course some minimal "look and feel" standard should exist, but this is probably obvious.
2D UI has become pretty much perfected, there is almost no way to improve upon it.
If by "UI" you mean "widget set" then perhaps you are right. Sadly, most developers think that a cool widget set will get them there, so a typical program is a labyrinth of menus and a few dozen buttons with strange and undecipherable icons.
The interaction sucks. Users have to perform many unnecessary actions. Why do I have to press "OK", read the "field value missing" dialog box, close it, fill the damn field and repeat the whole thing? Don't tell me that graying out the "OK" button untill all the required fields (which should be clearly marked as such) are filled is "dumbing down". It's a shame that document editors still need the "Save" button (this is an old example), when the edited file could easily and transparently get saved in the background. Irreversible changes? Why should they be irreversible? The disk space taken by saving the whole undo buffer is microscopic compared to modern disk sizes. Well, perhaps "label version" should get there instead of the "save" button, so that i can conveniently roll back to an old version without hitting "undo" 100 times. These are just a general examples that can be found in almost every application. Specific application have even more inconvieniences.
We got used to this so much that we don't even notice how crappy the UI is, but it is crappy and it can get better.
Microsoft paid the 100 most popular Hollywood actors to read aloud the contents of Windows XP installation CD image. "That will clearly demonstrate the superiority of closed source software" says the new Microsoft CEO, Mickey Mouse.
Personally, I think its unfortunate most people don't see it this way - its the reason great companies with great products get gobbled / trampled by the Wal-Marts, Microsofts, and Sony's of the world.
Companies are not people, though the law treats them as such - how unfortunate! I dislike the idea of supporting a company because it is "good" (as opposed to "evil"). Unfortunately, a "good" company can become "evil" much faster than the Pope can turn into a serial killer. A CEO gets replaced, the company's "personality" changes. As to the future of the product - good products sold by weak companies aren't rare, that's true. One can only hope that the product outlives its company. Well, this sometimes happens, sometimes not. The free market is far from perfect (Surprise!).
Freenet will protect you against censorship, but I don't think it'll protect your privacy (your ISP knows your IP).
Are you sure there is an easy way to find out who put a file on freenet? As far as I know one of Freenet's design goals is to make it impossible. I don't know how well did they meet that goal, though.
Pass a law that forbids using such lists for SPAMMING, then enforce it with instant jail time.
Send marines to bust some guy from souvereign territory of Quibumba Republic? Unfortunately this is not that simple. Well, there is a partial solution - a trusted organization that keeps the list and only answers queries about e-mail addresses. Or just publishing hashes of the prohibited e-mails. But this is only partial.
This goes way beyond pissing in the company coffee pot.
Yeah, once you kill your boss and all coworkers, it goes downhill - you start planting logic bombs, stealing money from your company and end up pissing into the coffee pot and *gasp* stealing paper clips!
Many years ago one of our staff left at the end of the summer. Our boss said "Thank you very much for working for us... [pause as the door closed, then turned to a coworker]... delete his account."
One of our customers (a bank) has a very funny login policy - you cannot login unless you are inside the building. Of course this is achieved by tracking employee use of ID cards to unlock doors, so it is not 100% airtight.
Re:This is about 5Ghz technology
on
DOD vs. 802.11b
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Shouldn't it show the DoD that they should start work, today, on the next-next generation of radar, which won't be able to be foiled by a bunch of high-power 5 ghz transmission devices, the basic parts for which might soon become available from civilian outlets over the Internet.
It's not that easy to jam a radar. Bats are a living proof of this. Thousands of them can navigate in dark caves without jamming each other. Radars are designed to avoid jamming - they use quite a wide spectrum of radio waves that changes dynamically (bats do that too, only with sound waves). Of course it is probably possible to build a jamming system, but such a system would involve many high-powered transmitters and thus would be very costly. I guess that widespread use of radar-frequency Wi-Fi would just slightly degrade military radar performance (perhaps civilian aviation radars would suffer more) and that's what the military are concerned about. I would be more concerned about a kilowatt radar signal damaging Wi-Fi equipment though.
Don't wifi/802.whatever/etc have power outputs in the milliwatts? Military radars work with hundreds of watts.
The generated signal may be hundreds of watts, but the received echo is far below miliwatts. Radar designers have to use really smart tricks to avoid jamming themselves.
And if these technologies do jam radars, is there an application in the field of speeding ticket avoidance?
The radars used by cops operate somewhere near the visible wavelengths (hundreds of nanometers). That is much shorter than military radars (centimeters, as far as I remember). I don't think wifi interferes with that.
I thought that as a reader of Slashdot, John Carmack [slashdot.org] was our resident god of games?
He is the god of 3D engines. Unfortunately a realistic 3D engine also needs gameplay. That's why I stopped playing FPS shooters in the old days of Castle Wolfenstein. Well, I hope he ain't got mod points:-)
Will version II of the suit also screw up your short-term memory and give you bad skin?
I don't know about this bad skin, man, but, uhm, what was I talking about, ah, short term memory! I have a way to screw it like totally, man. It gives me droopy eyelids and bloodshot eyes but makes me like totally insightful. I'm baffled as to why it doesn't show in the moderation of my comments.
Slashdot Mirror
Now what do you (I assume you're still the same Anonymous Coward) mean by being against Open Source? Should it be forbidden to write free software? All ethical problems aside, how are you going to enforce that? To put it short: blame your company business model, not the ones who show that it is flawed. Well, I guess that the watchmakers felt the same way about electronic watches, scribes about the printing press, etc, etc.
A hero.
Superpowers:
Kernel strike - takes 10 turns, produces a kernel that combined with a set of GNU tools decreases enemy share on the server market.
E-mail - takes 0 turns, gives additional activity to every geek character on LKML. This multiplies by 100 if re-posted on Slashdot.
Flying - well, not yet.
You have no spirit of adventure. Suppose that I hit a toaster manufacturer page looking for some technical data on a toaster. It is a very thrilling experience to click the "products" link and have to choose between "wooden products", "red&yellowish products", "other products", "products other than all of the above" and "guess where this link will take you". The products->toasters->specific model path is just boring when compared to that.
And of course I am all for OS/APP/UI/WidgetSet separation as long as these elements are freely interchangeable. I dislike the idea of "Gnome-7.0 with foo widget set 3.1.15 and bar window manager 1.2.13 only" applications. And of course some minimal "look and feel" standard should exist, but this is probably obvious.
The interaction sucks. Users have to perform many unnecessary actions. Why do I have to press "OK", read the "field value missing" dialog box, close it, fill the damn field and repeat the whole thing? Don't tell me that graying out the "OK" button untill all the required fields (which should be clearly marked as such) are filled is "dumbing down". It's a shame that document editors still need the "Save" button (this is an old example), when the edited file could easily and transparently get saved in the background. Irreversible changes? Why should they be irreversible? The disk space taken by saving the whole undo buffer is microscopic compared to modern disk sizes. Well, perhaps "label version" should get there instead of the "save" button, so that i can conveniently roll back to an old version without hitting "undo" 100 times. These are just a general examples that can be found in almost every application. Specific application have even more inconvieniences.
We got used to this so much that we don't even notice how crappy the UI is, but it is crappy and it can get better.
Microsoft paid the 100 most popular Hollywood actors to read aloud the contents of Windows XP installation CD image. "That will clearly demonstrate the superiority of closed source software" says the new Microsoft CEO, Mickey Mouse.
Yours sincerely,
Big Brother
Actually, my first thought was *shrug*. My second thought is "Go Freenet!".