True. The whole thing is a flame, and it's a pretty lame flame. Not worthy of usenet, but worthy of Syllabus, apparently. Did Strauss have one of those pesky student persons write the article for him? Because the quality seems less than the worst student rag ever. Apparently, he is [a] graduate of Drexel University and Carnegie Mellon University (from dandots post, another thread, this topic ). Hmm... Wonder what his application looked like: Race: [X] Other ___Troll____ Or perhaps, its this: Other People's $$ ---> Univeristy --> spends $$ on Software/Computers Big $$ Co --> grants some of the $$ back to Univeristy --> He gets to play w/ that $$ But, opensource doesn't, itself, give $$ for him to play w/ --> so, rant against opensource.
I think it would impolite, unless it was at a.*BSD conference, and it was a Heston Impersonator. Anyway...
>`Other than the mobile phone, really the only thing that's making (workers) more >effective is the software,'' Gates said shortly before unveiling the new products on a >Manhattan theater stage.
Ahh, how about a safe, pleasant working environment? Respect and some trust? Respect for good reasoning? Dilgence and very little "Passing the Buck."
Oh yeah, and health-care -- how could I forget? What can software do for real concerns and worries, Bill? A game might help for imaginary concerns, but for real problems?
And the "only thing?" And, is the mobile phone that effective? It can very annoying, when one is getting called to chat, when in the zone. Also, seems it can make traffic less effective, and therefore, business.
How about a law like: driver cannot talk on the phone if driving at a speed, greater than 1/3 posted speed? Or near equivalent. And of course, in keeping w/ all the other rules of the road.
But what about this language: "You have to abide by the statutes of a license or it can be revoked."
Statutes of a civil contract? No, I think the word there is terms, isn't it? ( Or, maybe clauses). "Statutes" makes one think of official, legislated law. A driver's license is given out by the State, the GOVERNMENT, it is not a contract between two parties, it's not business. How is that even applicable to this?
He seems to be confusing criminal code and civil law. Rhetorical FUD? Or just cluelessness?
>"Scott's brash and contrarian personality have been synonymous with the company's >image and success. Unfortunately, the act is getting old," Milunovich wrote.
But, the problem is ( too me anyway) that it stopped being contrarian and started emulating Microsoft. But w/o being in their position ( of near dominance ). Certification crap, many confusing changes to the system. Ever try to find the actual dev file? Something like 8 levels of indirection via symlinks. ( Did it really need to be that convuluted? ) Seemed like it all started around '93 when they really pushed everyone to stop calling it Sunos and start calling it Solaris. It really got obnoxious. Oh yeah, Solaris was around before that, but mainly users and admins called it Sunos, unless they were reaching for the install CD's. Shortly, thereafter they started using CDE, which was comparitivly, very, very bloated to everything else, at the time, and generally the whole OS got big, and bloated, all the while adding new security holes while adding new whizz bang GUI-admin tools. Prior to that, one could ussually safely assume a Sunos admin would have at least some rudimentary scripting skills, but thanks to certification, no longer. Long odds, now. Lots of changes where one has to relearn how do things one already knew how to do... why then pay more for expensive hardware? And with more bloat than before, pay still more? Why not use existing knowledge and migrate to linux or BSD? Basically, they made their users constantly play catchup, the 'thats the o way, this the new way.' And when analyzed, the only conclusion is that new-way comes with a sexier front-end, and that you could have gotten the same behavior before, but it would have meant changing the defaults, and, oh yeah, you can't change you new-way to work, exactly the sameway the oldway defaulted to. ( and if that doesn't sound like M$, then nothing does. )
Perhaps, it really began back when they dropped their BSD roots and started being more Sys5, sounded good at the time, but they have lost their cultural/historic identity and perhaps, w/o their knowing it started using M$ as their role-model.
Good point. And if that's not true someone could go up the aisle supermarkets w/ some kind of hacked up detecter.
Sooooooooo, it must work like this: You crack open the winning can. A chemical reaction starts, sounds like fizzing coke, but instead its forming foaming battery acid fizz! The force of the fizz launches an antena out of the past the tab, hopefully not jabbing you in the eye...
Actually, its the truth. Some muds don't need clients, Diku's and ROM's, they have a fair amount of client basic features built in. If you have a good telnet it will do line-mode, and you the bandwith you need will drop considerably. A fair amount of the client software out there doesn't do line-mode. So every keypress is sent to the mud. I noticed mud users dropped considerably about when windows95 telnet didn't do linemode.
Re:You don't need a totally unique ID for that
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 1
If it isn't per instance, they might have problems identifying how many items. But I don't know how this technology will work w/o considerable DB changes.
And how can a washingmachine know what clothes are what, or that a 12pack of coke, w/o acessing some DB. And who is going to write it? Who's in retail is going to take the time and effort to add the 'care label' to their DB, w/o approriate functions, and open up a server to the internet, so that someone's washing machine will access? I doubt it. It would be nice, but I doubt it.
I mean maybe you could attach a terminal to the washing machine , have it read the tag then type in/ or select what type of clothings , and add it do your washing machines personal clothing DB.... but otherwise is the washing machine going to go-online and do some sql queries?
As far a I know, the tags will only respond with their id number and nothing else. I think this is overly hyped, will require huge investments in software and database redesign, and in the end, they will probably will be used against consumers privacy interests, if only to recoup some of the cost.
"Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Ralph Lauren teamed..." Can they all drive stick?
Because if a stick can't do it, it ought not to be done.... Just a little sheriff's motto from way back.
Yeah, I mean those three should drive around a closed expressway... and if they fsck it up, 1 of them can't even stay in the lines.. then I'd say no.
1 of them is just a copycat... Rugby shirts....I'd wear a ruby shirt, and I'd get picked on by the Ralph Lauren crowd. I doubt if any can even drive like the law, or "street legal." Can they make a U-turn?
I double deputy dawg them them to try to drive that 'street legal car' , street legal, like the law. I doubt they'll try.
I don't agree, unless their plan is to lose on the Chinese question, to make the "un-American" rhetoric stronger... I'm saying, only if this is a move to provoke the Chinese into definitely going open-source, just to make the un-American argument stronger at home. Otherwise, I don't think it's wise at all. Operating systems and embedded operating systems are everywhere, and in almost everything. It is just militarily stupid for China to go with a Software supplier, from a power, that is potentially hostile to it. (Microsoft and the United States). Currently , the U.S. bans the export of any decent level of encryption software, as munitions, from China's perspective we could just as easily ban Operating System Software with the same premise. Could a smart-weapon be made with a embedded OS? Can a weapon be controlled by remotely by a computer running a comidity O.S? Of course, then operating systems in general could be ruled part of the manufacture of munitions, and then banned. And considering the brittleness of their software, being denied access to updates could be very damaging to their infrastructure. Even if we'd only use as leverage in the next political incident, they'll not going want to even let, anyone have that kind of leverage over them. If the situation was reversed, and we were all using Chinese Operating Systems everywhere, in homes, in aircraft carriers, in power plants, it would be intuitively obvious to everyone concerned that we would want alternatives.
>> "Governments should not be in the position to decide who the winners are," Robertson said. I don't think China's Communist Party elites are going to read that the same way. I mean,that is the entire of point of the it isn't. They have a monolopy on thought, and freedom -- they/are/ in/that position/, have/been in/ that position, and plan to/stay in/ that position, and sadly they are doing a much better job of staying there, than their Russian counterparts ever did. And, I'm sure they look at how much power, money, and influence M$ has , and see's them purely as rivals to their interests, competitors.
"One of the first tasks of any individual joining a group is to determine the pecking order within which authority is distributed." Hmm. I don't agree, some people do that, some don't. To me, truth/knowledge is the ultimate authority, and I have generally have disdain for the obvious pecking order peons. You can give them a proof, and they'll go ask around, logic is wasted on them, they need to figure out the authority figures, because they only have the intelligence for a by-authority argument, but authority is only authority if it is right, otherwise it is simply power. ( or they don't care to troublethemselves to use the brains they were born with)
I am very distrustful of this field, since to tends to reduce human beings to "very bright cattle" and generalizes away any individuality, I think humanity would be better served if social science would find ways to help society evolve beyond "group-think," rather than make it easier for those who would use or abuse it.
Also the phrase "engineering trust" troubles me. If someone "engineered my trust", they probably are a social-engineer or confidence trickster, and don't deserve it.
And the idea that notions of truth or good and evil are completly relative to society is historically false. History is full of instances of a small number of individuals fighting against an injustice that the majority/society was "ok with". There were people against slavery since the beginning of slavery. If those individuals had accepted the social-science view point, we'd still have those evil institutions today. But first it's 1, then its a few, then is statistically relevent enough for a social-scientist to squint at, then it's the majority view point.
And yeah, I'm flaming, but to have such a/cheery/ opinion about article --jeesh. Let me direct some of my ire toward the article, How about this qoute: "You can look at this but not that." With Usenet there is one that says "Leave my messages alone," and we respect that. We will not store your messages if you put that in them." -- So I have a choice of being ignored by archivists, or codified by a computer program,
I think we need a new header here, ASAP.
Its a strange world we live in, where people can go to jail for info about to hack a device, but the info to better hack/engineer the personalities of your fellow human beings ??? Hacked e-books don't hijack airplanes, or commit genoicide, or exploit people in general.
And, how is this for a qualified statement?: "What about privacy?" "I think it's a very important thing. And we have build NetScan to protect what I think are legitimate claims for privacy" -- So only the protect what you/think/ are legitimate claims for privacy, sounds pretty weak, especially if I assume your thinking will of course be realitive to the society around you at M$, which I can since you don't know about right or wrong etc. (he,says so in article) Makes me wonder how you know anything, since you can never know if your right... but I guess its rude of me to say.... kinda like its rude to say a social-science isn't a real science. Can't think much of privacy since he says "claims for privacy", instead of "arguments" or "reasons" Also its a thinly vailed insinuation that there only claims for and not reasons for. Also insinuation that there are illegimate claims for. I guess those illegitimate claims would be any he doesn't agree with... And if everything's relative and theres not right or wrong... theres not way of proving or disproving whether anything is legitimate or not --- why is it in his lexicon? Who knows? Of course, if theres no truth, then theres no logic either since given A->B. A has to be true to imply B, if you can't never know if A is true, then you can't ever do anything useful with the implication-- it's meaningless. Seems like an unacceptable paradox to me, but I guess I'm not statistically significant...
Yeah, old news, Physics 201 stuff, interesting though , is angular momentum. Take a spinning body and move mass from the center of rotation ( arms in the classic person spinning in chair experiment ) to the edges (arms in out in the same experiment) what happens ? well they slow down. At any rate, I remember my prof. explaining that as the ice melts the mass will restribute evenly throught the ocean, but since the equator is further radiually out, any more mass redistributed there from the poles, would cause the earth to slow in its rotation... then again maybe he was full of it--- but it would be interesting I wonder if people would freak out more if they were that because of global-warming the day would be an hour longer...
After reading, "IBM's Linux customers include Unilever NV, the world's largest maker of food and soap..." I thought: And on a related note: On news that Unilever used Linux, millions of unix-geeks washed today some for the first time since they used a command line, which for some was a long ago as 1993. Executives were pleased and announced plans to embed the mini-cd-linux-distro-de-jour inside every bar of soap...
The fact they're calling him a hacker instead of just a thief, is. The news stories that do mention that he was insider with access to that info, bury it in paragraphs 3 or 4. Its not hacking, he had access. If a guy who you've give key's to safe walks out with the payroll, then he's a thief, but there's no breaking and entering. I see too factors: media chique they love to use the word "hacker". The company and companies in general want to minimize the fact that they were slack, so they use the words hacker to make people think it was the computer equivalent of a cat-burgler.
My guess is that they setup their db in a real slack way, and the ended up giving out more db access to more employess than they should have --not enough tiers of users. Not hacking, because they messed up when they gave him that much access in the first place. The problem with that is, since most people don't really think about anything, more than just making sure that they're doing everything that everyone else is doing, that other companies won't learn either.
And you'd be surprised how techinical some people can be when its comes to "snooping". People, how never seem smart enough about computers to figure something out, suddenly have all kinds of extra capacity, if their motivation is snooping.
Asking people to kill city lights will never work, they'll play it like your asking for return to the dark ages. Instead how about better motion sensors, maybe RF detectors in the city lights. Make it so on side roads, the streetlights 2 up and 2 down from you are turned on. And add a gradual fade off (dimmer) instead of winking out. Then you can sell it as an improvement: Less energy use, better bulb life, less maintence costs, and oh yeah can finally see that comet/meteor shower from your backyward like the weather guy on tv is always saying you can.
Yeah, but most artificial light doesn't help with SADs.
Reverse Email and rules for max size
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
I may have read something about what Internet mail 2000 is years ago.
But here's an idea I add a few monthes ago. Leave email as is -- mainly. But add user settable rules for max size email. Like I'd take a 4k email from anyone, but not 4mb from anyone. Really if its actually an email then 60-100k is generous. And not in pop server, thats just downloading it.. I mean user settable rules (filters ) that truncate the mail to a size in the inbox.
Add another protocol that works like reverse email where the "parcel " stays on the server until you pick it up, to supplement, not replace email. The protocol would not itself notify you, it would be strickly pull, user initiated, so email would still be needed. ( or a phone call, or snail mail.... Basically its Parcel pickup. But its simpler since servers don't need to talk to other servers to handle clients etc. Instead it would a cross between an ftp server and pop. Perhaps could even be an extentsion to pop. Suppose you had a email-bulletin, the email could go out plain text ( maybe html-- you can't stop them), but no attached megabyte pdfs... instead that goes to the parcel pickup server were it stays until everyone in the to: list picks it up ( or a certain amount time ) then it's deleted. If the user doesn't care to pickit up.. it doesn't go to them. And may add some basic encryption for a parcel-id. You could do this with a webserver or ftpserver.. but it would require a db and scripting or you'd have to do manually. The problem with email is all the extra things its having to do. Like file distribution. Really there needs to more alternatives. None of this kills spam.. but it would minimize the effects, and allow users to be/better behaved/ if they care to be...
It's embrace, extend, destroy all over again. If they can take over the medium, they can destroy the message. I'd say most UNIX lore and wisdom is distributed via USENET, destroying that medium would be useful to M$, as a means to end, to destroy *nix philosophy. Ditto opensource. W/o USENET the developers would be talking just to themselves on their closed conferences. There are websites, but they are more like newspapers , and magazines, the experiences is perceived as editted, and so will be assumed to be biased to the skeptic.
No, atomic implies discrete, that which cannot be broken down further. Atomic and infinitely smaller pieces is contradictory. Now, if it were that there was a discrete, atomic unit of time, that could not be broken down any further, then all measures of time would have to be integer multiples of that atomic unit. Actually, I believe that is the current belief, but I remember my profs waving a dismissive hand to the question of what that means to differentialbility of functions if the domain were changed from real numbers to a discrete domain, according to calculus some functions would work, and others would not --you can't just assume it, because non-discrete real number system is the the basis, check the definition of the derivative... Intergration as well, but no-one could point me to a proof that everything still works if time is discrete.
Also, calculus is based on the definition of the derivative
f'(a) = lim (f( a+h ) - f( a))/h h->0
Some things are sums, some aren't, integration has a fair amount of sums involved, but those are anti-derivatives -- so you really can't get away from the derivative. You can do a fair amount of calc. w/o seeing a sigma, but not without a dx. Then there was right and left hand derivatives... if time is discrete, and you have a function of time,like motion, f(t) and a is 1q (quanta) then how can you approach from the left? Seems like you couldn't do it since the domain would be t>=1. If I can't take the 1st derivative at a=1, then how can I take the 2nd derivative at a=2? if time is discrete? I never got a good answer for that.
Theme is probably commonly bootlegged/stolen/dubbed songs over the last 25 years or so. With the 80's songs it would have been dubbing with the dualcassette is all. They probably have the list from somewhere else, been compiling over the years. From teenage informants and such.
Taken to the nth degree, this scheme would be inverse-communism, instead of everyone being paid the same (and paid poorly), everyone gets a bad deal, gets taken advantage of , is treated poorly , because of their ability to pay more, so it flattens out the advantages of wealth to some extent, so:
Make more money your dollar buys less.
Whats not inverted is that there's someone at the top profitting by exploiting others..(compare Stalin et al, to big business etc)
Yeah. But you don't have to submit it, just distribute it with the binary, or make available. You don't have to submit it. I mean send them a patch just they can drop it? I can see how using linux for embedded systems could be a problem for ad-hoc, quick and dirty designers. They will naturally modify the C source directy, because it takes the least amount of thought. Their concern is if they release all their changes, since its all comodity components any anyone would then recreate everything they do. Trivially. Pinksys would spring up (think: Pinktie v Redhat), sell all their products as kits, and undersell them... Of course, they just to make a lib from scratch with what they needed to imp. (Like liblinksysrouter5.so or whatever) still some cavaets.. but I believe its feasible in some circurmstances... But if they just hack libc sources, then yeah, I believe they need to make those changes available. Incidently, I'd love to see some of those small case pc systems just distributed as kits, with lower price because less labor, I might buy one then.
Slashdot Mirror
True.
The whole thing is a flame, and it's a pretty lame flame. Not worthy of usenet, but
worthy of Syllabus, apparently. Did Strauss have one of those pesky student persons write the article for him? Because the quality seems less than the worst student rag ever.
Apparently, he is [a] graduate of Drexel University and Carnegie Mellon University
(from dandots post, another thread, this topic ). Hmm... Wonder what his application looked like: Race: [X] Other ___Troll____
Or perhaps, its this:
Other People's $$ ---> Univeristy --> spends $$ on Software/Computers
Big $$ Co --> grants some of the $$ back to Univeristy --> He gets to play w/ that $$
But, opensource doesn't, itself, give $$ for him to play w/ --> so, rant against opensource.
I think it would impolite, unless it was at a .*BSD conference, and it was a Heston Impersonator.
Anyway...
>`Other than the mobile phone, really the only thing that's making (workers) more >effective is the software,'' Gates said shortly before unveiling the new products on a >Manhattan theater stage.
Ahh, how about a safe, pleasant working environment? Respect and some trust?
Respect for good reasoning? Dilgence and very little "Passing the Buck."
Oh yeah, and health-care -- how could I forget? What can software do for real concerns and worries, Bill? A game might help for imaginary concerns, but for real problems?
And the "only thing?"
And, is the mobile phone that effective? It can very annoying, when one is getting called to chat, when in the zone. Also, seems it can make traffic less effective, and therefore, business.
How about a law like: driver cannot talk on the phone if driving at a speed, greater than 1/3 posted speed? Or near equivalent. And of course, in keeping w/ all the other rules of the road.
Well, have they ever asserted that they were in NO WAY associated?
Right, revoked with cause, not at whim.
But what about this language:
"You have to abide by the statutes of a license or it can be revoked."
Statutes of a civil contract? No, I think the word there is terms, isn't it? ( Or, maybe clauses). "Statutes" makes one think of official, legislated law. A driver's license is given out by the State, the GOVERNMENT, it is not a contract between two parties, it's not business. How is that even applicable to this?
He seems to be confusing criminal code and civil law. Rhetorical FUD?
Or just cluelessness?
>"Scott's brash and contrarian personality have been synonymous with the company's >image and success. Unfortunately, the act is getting old," Milunovich wrote.
But, the problem is ( too me anyway) that it stopped being contrarian and started emulating Microsoft. But w/o being in their position ( of near dominance ).
Certification crap, many confusing changes to the system. Ever try to find the actual dev file? Something like 8 levels of indirection via symlinks. ( Did it really need to be that convuluted? )
Seemed like it all started around '93 when they really pushed everyone to stop calling it Sunos and start calling it Solaris. It really got obnoxious. Oh yeah, Solaris was around before that, but mainly users and admins called it Sunos, unless they were reaching for the install CD's. Shortly, thereafter they started using CDE, which was comparitivly, very, very bloated to everything else, at the time, and generally the whole OS got big, and bloated, all the while adding new security holes while adding new whizz bang GUI-admin tools. Prior to that, one could ussually safely assume a Sunos admin would have at least some rudimentary scripting skills, but thanks to certification, no longer. Long odds, now. Lots of changes where one has to relearn how do things one already knew how to do... why then pay more for expensive hardware? And with more bloat than before, pay still more? Why not use existing knowledge and migrate to linux or BSD? Basically, they made their users constantly play catchup, the 'thats the o way, this the new way.' And when analyzed, the only conclusion is that new-way comes with a sexier front-end, and that you could have gotten the same behavior before, but it would have meant changing the defaults, and, oh yeah, you can't change you new-way to work, exactly the sameway the oldway defaulted to. ( and if that doesn't sound like M$, then nothing does. )
Perhaps, it really began back when they dropped their BSD roots and started being more Sys5, sounded good at the time, but they have lost their cultural/historic identity
and perhaps, w/o their knowing it started using M$ as their role-model.
Good point. And if that's not true someone could go up the aisle supermarkets w/ some kind of hacked up detecter.
Sooooooooo, it must work like this: You crack open the winning can. A chemical reaction starts, sounds like fizzing coke, but instead its forming foaming battery acid fizz! The force of the fizz launches an antena out of the past the tab, hopefully not jabbing you in the eye...
Actually, its the truth. Some muds don't need clients, Diku's and ROM's, they
have a fair amount of client basic features built in. If you have a good telnet
it will do line-mode, and you the bandwith you need will drop considerably.
A fair amount of the client software out there doesn't do line-mode. So every keypress
is sent to the mud. I noticed mud users dropped considerably about when windows95 telnet didn't do linemode.
If it isn't per instance, they might have problems identifying how many items.
But I don't know how this technology will work w/o considerable DB changes.
And how can a washingmachine know what clothes are what, or that a 12pack of coke,
w/o acessing some DB. And who is going to write it? Who's in retail is going to take the time and effort to add the 'care label' to their DB, w/o approriate functions, and open up a server to the internet, so that someone's washing machine will access?
I doubt it. It would be nice, but I doubt it.
I mean maybe you could attach a terminal to the washing machine , have it read the tag
then type in/ or select what type of clothings , and add it do your washing machines
personal clothing DB.... but otherwise is the washing machine going to go-online and
do some sql queries?
As far a I know, the tags will only respond with their id number and nothing else.
I think this is overly hyped, will require huge investments in software and database redesign, and in the end, they will probably will be used against consumers privacy interests, if only to recoup some of the cost.
New Dr. Who music or are using one of the older ones?
"Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Ralph Lauren teamed..."
Can they all drive stick?
Because if a stick can't do it, it ought not to be done.... Just a little sheriff's motto from way back.
Yeah, I mean those three should drive around a closed expressway... and if they fsck it up, 1 of them can't even stay in the lines.. then I'd say no.
1 of them is just a copycat... Rugby shirts....I'd wear a ruby shirt, and I'd get picked on by the Ralph Lauren crowd. I doubt if any can even drive like the law, or "street legal."
Can they make a U-turn?
I double deputy dawg them them to try to drive that 'street legal car' , street legal, like the law. I doubt they'll try.
And if you don't know ask.
I don't agree, unless their plan is to lose on the Chinese question, to make the "un-American" rhetoric stronger ... I'm saying, only if this is a move to provoke the Chinese into definitely going open-source, just to make the un-American argument stronger at home. Otherwise, I don't think it's wise at all. Operating systems and embedded operating systems are everywhere, and in almost everything. It is just militarily stupid for China to go with a Software supplier, from a power, that is potentially hostile to it. (Microsoft and the United States). Currently , the U.S. bans the export of any decent level of encryption software, as munitions, from China's perspective we could just as easily ban Operating System Software with the same premise. Could a smart-weapon be made with a embedded OS? Can a weapon be controlled by remotely by a computer running a comidity O.S? Of course, then operating systems in general could be ruled part of the manufacture of munitions, and then banned. And considering the brittleness of their software, being denied access to updates could be very damaging to their infrastructure. Even if we'd only use as leverage in the next political incident, they'll not going want to even let, anyone have that kind of leverage over them.
,that is the entire of point of the it isn't. They have a monolopy on thought, and freedom -- they /are/ in /that position/, have /been in/ that position, and plan to /stay in/ that position, and sadly they are doing a much better job of staying there, than their Russian counterparts ever did.
If the situation was reversed, and we were all using Chinese Operating Systems everywhere, in homes, in aircraft carriers, in power plants, it would be intuitively obvious to everyone concerned that we would want alternatives.
>> "Governments should not be in the position to decide who the winners are," Robertson said.
I don't think China's Communist Party elites are going to read that the same way.
I mean
And, I'm sure they look at how much power, money, and influence M$ has , and see's them purely as rivals to their interests, competitors.
Does GNU/linux have a theme song? How about Brazil? that is if it's free.
"One of the first tasks of any individual joining a group is to determine the pecking order within which authority is distributed."
/cheery/ opinion about article --jeesh.
/think/ are legitimate claims for privacy, sounds pretty weak, especially if I assume your thinking will of course be realitive to the society around you at M$, which I can since you don't know about right or wrong etc. (he,says so in article) Makes me wonder how you know anything, since you can never know if your right... but I guess its rude of me to say.... kinda like its rude to say a social-science isn't a real science. Can't think much of privacy since he says "claims for privacy", instead of "arguments" or "reasons" Also its a thinly vailed insinuation that there only
Hmm. I don't agree, some people do that, some don't. To me, truth/knowledge is the ultimate authority, and I have generally have disdain for the obvious pecking order peons. You can give them a proof, and they'll go ask around, logic is wasted on them, they need to figure out the authority figures, because they only have the intelligence for a by-authority argument, but authority is only authority if it is right, otherwise it is simply power. ( or they don't care to troublethemselves to use the brains they were born with)
I am very distrustful of this field, since to tends to reduce human beings to "very bright cattle" and generalizes away any individuality, I think humanity would be better served if social science would find ways to help society evolve beyond "group-think," rather than make it easier for those who would use or abuse it.
Also the phrase "engineering trust" troubles me. If someone "engineered my trust", they probably are a social-engineer or confidence trickster, and don't deserve it.
And the idea that notions of truth or good and evil are completly relative to society is historically false. History is full of instances of a small number of individuals fighting against an injustice that the majority/society was "ok with". There were people against slavery since the beginning of slavery. If those individuals had accepted the social-science view point, we'd still have those evil institutions today. But first it's 1, then its a few, then is statistically relevent enough for a social-scientist to squint at, then it's the majority view point.
And yeah, I'm flaming, but to have such a
Let me direct some of my ire toward the article, How about this qoute:
"You can look at this but not that." With Usenet there is one that says "Leave my messages alone," and we respect that. We will not store your messages if you put that in them."
-- So I have a choice of being ignored by archivists, or codified by a computer program,
I think we need a new header here, ASAP.
Its a strange world we live in, where people can go to jail for info about to hack a device, but the info to better hack/engineer the personalities of your fellow human beings ???
Hacked e-books don't hijack airplanes, or commit genoicide, or exploit people in general.
And, how is this for a qualified statement?:
"What about privacy?"
"I think it's a very important thing. And we have build NetScan to protect what I think are legitimate claims for privacy"
-- So only the protect what you
claims for and not reasons for. Also insinuation that there are illegimate claims for.
I guess those illegitimate claims would be any he doesn't agree with... And if everything's relative and theres not right or wrong... theres not way of proving or disproving whether anything is legitimate or not --- why is it in his lexicon? Who knows?
Of course, if theres no truth, then theres no logic either since given A->B. A has to be true to imply B, if you can't never know if A is true, then you can't ever do anything useful with the implication-- it's meaningless. Seems like an unacceptable paradox to me, but I guess I'm not statistically significant...
Yeah, old news, Physics 201 stuff, interesting though , is angular momentum.
Take a spinning body and move mass from the center of rotation ( arms in the classic person spinning in chair experiment ) to the edges (arms in out in the same experiment) what happens ? well they slow down. At any rate, I remember my prof. explaining that as the ice melts the mass will restribute evenly throught the ocean, but since the equator is further radiually out, any more mass redistributed there from the poles, would cause the earth to slow in its rotation... then again maybe he was full of it--- but it would be interesting I wonder if people would freak out more if they were that because of global-warming the day would be an hour longer...
After reading, "IBM's Linux customers include Unilever NV, the world's largest maker of food and soap..." I thought:
And on a related note: On news that Unilever used Linux, millions of unix-geeks washed today some for the first time since they used a command line, which for some was a long ago as 1993. Executives were pleased and announced plans to embed the mini-cd-linux-distro-de-jour inside every bar of soap...
The fact they're calling him a hacker instead of just a thief, is.
The news stories that do mention that he was insider with access to that info, bury it in paragraphs 3 or 4. Its not hacking, he had access. If a guy who you've give key's to safe walks out with the payroll, then he's a thief, but there's no breaking and entering.
I see too factors: media chique they love to use the word "hacker".
The company and companies in general want to minimize the fact that they were slack, so they use the words hacker to make people think it was the computer equivalent of a cat-burgler.
My guess is that they setup their db in a real slack way, and the ended up giving out more db access to more employess than they should have --not enough tiers of users.
Not hacking, because they messed up when they gave him that much access in the first place. The problem with that is, since most people don't really think about anything, more than just making sure that they're doing everything that everyone else is doing, that other companies won't learn either.
And you'd be surprised how techinical some people can be when its comes to "snooping". People, how never seem smart enough about computers to figure something out, suddenly have all kinds of extra capacity, if their motivation is snooping.
Asking people to kill city lights will never work, they'll play it like your asking for return to the dark ages. Instead how about better motion sensors, maybe RF detectors in the city lights. Make it so on side roads, the streetlights 2 up and 2 down from you are turned on. And add a gradual fade off (dimmer) instead of winking out.
Then you can sell it as an improvement: Less energy use, better bulb life, less maintence costs, and oh yeah can finally see that comet/meteor shower from your backyward like the weather guy on tv is always saying you can.
Yeah, but most artificial light doesn't help with SADs.
I may have read something about what Internet mail 2000 is years ago.
.. Basically its Parcel pickup. But its simpler since servers don't need to talk to other servers to handle clients etc. Instead it would a cross between an ftp server and pop. Perhaps could even be an extentsion to pop. .. it doesn't go to them. /better behaved/ if they care to be...
But here's an idea I add a few monthes ago. Leave email as is -- mainly.
But add user settable rules for max size email. Like I'd take a 4k email
from anyone, but not 4mb from anyone. Really if its actually an email then 60-100k
is generous. And not in pop server, thats just downloading it.. I mean user settable rules (filters ) that truncate the mail to a size in the inbox.
Add another protocol that works like reverse email where the "parcel " stays on the server until you pick it up, to supplement, not replace email. The protocol would not itself notify you, it would be strickly pull, user initiated, so email would still be needed. ( or a phone call, or snail mail..
Suppose you had a email-bulletin, the email could go out plain text ( maybe html-- you can't stop them), but no attached megabyte pdfs... instead that goes to the parcel pickup server were it stays until everyone in the to: list picks it up ( or a certain amount time ) then it's deleted. If the user doesn't care to pickit up
And may add some basic encryption for a parcel-id. You could do this with a webserver or ftpserver.. but it would require a db and scripting or you'd have to do manually.
The problem with email is all the extra things its having to do. Like file distribution.
Really there needs to more alternatives.
None of this kills spam.. but it would minimize the effects, and allow users to be
It's embrace, extend, destroy all over again. If they can take over the medium, they can destroy the message. I'd say most UNIX lore and wisdom is distributed via USENET,
destroying that medium would be useful to M$, as a means to end, to destroy *nix philosophy. Ditto opensource. W/o USENET the developers would be talking just to themselves on their closed conferences. There are websites, but they are more like newspapers , and magazines, the experiences is perceived as editted, and so will be assumed to be biased to the skeptic.
No, atomic implies discrete, that which cannot be broken down further. Atomic and infinitely smaller pieces is contradictory.
/h
Now, if it were that there was a discrete, atomic unit of time, that could not be broken down any further, then all measures of time would have to be integer multiples of that atomic unit. Actually, I believe that is the current belief, but I remember my profs waving a dismissive hand to the question of what that means to differentialbility of functions if the domain were changed from real numbers to a discrete domain, according to calculus some functions would work, and others would not --you can't just assume it, because non-discrete real number system is the the basis, check the definition of the derivative... Intergration as well, but no-one could point me to a proof that everything still works if time is discrete.
Also, calculus is based on the definition of the derivative
f'(a) = lim (f( a+h ) - f( a))
h->0
Some things are sums, some aren't, integration has a fair amount of sums involved, but those are anti-derivatives -- so you really can't get away from the derivative. You can do a fair amount of calc. w/o seeing a sigma, but not without a dx.
Then there was right and left hand derivatives... if time is discrete, and you have a function of time,like motion, f(t) and a is 1q (quanta) then how can you approach from the left? Seems like you couldn't do it since the domain would be t>=1.
If I can't take the 1st derivative at a=1, then how can I take the 2nd derivative at a=2? if time is discrete? I never got a good answer for that.
So did they give corps. voting rights? Or does this imply corps and PACS are gone?
Theme is probably commonly bootlegged/stolen/dubbed songs over the last 25 years or so. With the 80's songs it would have been dubbing with the dualcassette is all.
They probably have the list from somewhere else, been compiling over the years. From teenage informants and such.
Taken to the nth degree, this scheme would be inverse-communism, instead of everyone being paid the same (and paid poorly), everyone gets a bad deal, gets taken advantage of , is treated poorly , because of their ability to pay more, so it flattens out the advantages of wealth to some extent, so:
.(compare Stalin et al, to big business etc)
Make more money your dollar buys less.
Whats not inverted is that there's someone at the top profitting by exploiting others.
Yeah. But you don't have to submit it, just distribute it with the binary, or make available.
You don't have to submit it. I mean send them a patch just they can drop it?
I can see how using linux for embedded systems could be a problem for ad-hoc, quick and dirty designers. They will naturally modify the C source directy, because it takes the least amount of thought. Their concern is if they release all their changes, since its all comodity components any anyone would then recreate everything they do.
Trivially. Pinksys would spring up (think: Pinktie v Redhat), sell all their products as kits, and undersell them... Of course, they just to make a lib from scratch with what they needed to imp. (Like liblinksysrouter5.so or whatever) still some cavaets.. but I believe its feasible in some circurmstances...
But if they just hack libc sources, then yeah, I believe they need to make those changes available.
Incidently, I'd love to see some of those small case pc systems just distributed as kits, with lower price because less labor, I might buy one then.