I'm confused...gaia was accessing the data directly instead of via the Google Earth API?
This part of the letter seems to have a dose of overacting to it:
The kindness through which Google has made the wonder of our planet available to more than 100 million users around the world is now threatened -- not by a menacing and fierce business competitor -- but by you. Please hear the seriousness in this statement. I am not an attorney. I am not posturing. Just the opposite. We on the engineering team are hopeful that despite the risk your actions (break the ToS, reverse engineer parts of the data protection mechanisms, publish the fact and code, encourage others) pose to our product, team, company, and users, we remain hopeful that this was an unintended result of what started as intellectual curiosity by a smart engineer like ourselves who has a passion to learn how things work.
Yeah, I'm sure that the gaia project was a threat to Google. A bit melodramatic, aren't you Mr. Jones?
Not having used Google Earth, what difference does it make accessing the images via the Google Earth API versus directly?
At the end of the contract? I've gotten phones unlocked for free before the end of the contract.
True story: I wanted to use my T-Mobile BlackBerry 7100t in Australia with a prepaid Aussie SIM where calling back to the US only cost 40 cents/minute instead of $1.25/minute using T-Mobile. Before I left, I called T-Mobile, told them I wanted to use an overseas prepaid SIM in my phone, and needed to unlock it.
They were going to email me the unlock instructions, but they never showed up (I'm assuming an honest glitch here). After two days I called back and got the instructions over the phone. Followed the instructions and wham-o, unlocked BlackBerry. Out comes the T-Mobile SIM, in goes the Vodafone AU SIM, and I'm on the Aussie GSM network with an Aussie number.
(BTW--you can unlock a BlackBerry to use other networks' voice and data services for things like web browsing, but email only works with the original carrier; RIM knows which carrier bought your unit and will only do email with your unit through their network.)
T-Mobile may be an exception, but I've never had to pay to get the phone unlocked. Sometimes you see a clause where a carrier won't unlock the phone for the first 90 days of a contract (can't remember the source).
Officers in the 19 safer neighbourhood teams in the Haringey area have been issued with eight cameras, each the size of an AA battery, that record video images to a special utility belt. They are activated by a switch on the belt.
The submitter probably assumed that all eight cameras were on one helmet, covering 360 degrees. It's like that party game where you tell a "secret" and wait to see how badly it gets mangled by the time it reaches the original source.
Nowhere in the original story or in the Register posting does it say anything about 360 degree coverage. Sure, it's 360 degrees--if the bobby wearing it does a little twirl.
Submitter doesn't read the submission, editors don't read the submission...just another day on/.
Let's not forget that the 747 is also carrying cargo that has nothing to do with the passangers.
Right...I almost said that, but then I wasn't sure if passenger flights carried extra cargo like mail sacks, etc. There used to be a service on airlines where you could essentially buy your cargo a ticket on a particular flight so that you knew exactly when it would arrive at its destination, but I don't know if such a service still exists.
(and as has been pointed out, passenger flights don't have much extra room for extra cargo)
This uncertainty is why I suggested that a more fair comparison would be to examine how much fuel is burned per ton of cargo per mile of travel; that would be a more consistent comparison. After all, the original poster didn't take into account the luggage that the Escalade had to carry; the SUV was carrying LESS in terms of weight per passenger than the 747.
Here at work we deal with rather simple ones, for example simulating the EM radiation on an antenna, and that takes months on a powerful workstation.
Those must be some damned complex antenna structures you're dealing with; I can run simulations using NEC-Win+ in far, far, far less than "months." I've simulated a helical antenna in about three minutes on a Dell notebook. I know other EM engineers that have simulated antennas on large, metal structures using NEC on time scales in the area of hours or maybe days, not months, using desktop PCs.
or even plotting how a golf ball flies and things that require the most powerful supercomputer, if they are even doable at all.
I recall playing a game back on an old Apple II+ called "Howitzer" that didn't take months to play. Doesn't a golf ball follow a simple ballistic path?
I'd be interested in knowing what you are looking for when you take months to simulate the EM field about an antenna, or claim that the path a golf ball takes through the air requires a supercomputer, because quite frankly, I think you're exxagerating a bit.
The only fault that comes to mind immediately with this argument is that the Escalade may be carrying eight passengers, but...where is their luggage? Can an Escalade carry eight passengers PLUS two suitcases per passenger (16 suitcases) PLUS a carry-on (eight more bags) PLUS that well-defined personal item (such as a laptop or briefcase, eight more small bags)?
I ask simply because I don't know the cargo capacity of an Escalade. A 747 will carry all that, plus that occasional extra/overweight baggage, without the need for a trailer or rooftop cargo box (both of which will cut your fuel economy considerably).
I think a more equivalent argument would be the fuel required to move a certain amount of mass from point a to point b; after all, that's what's being moved, whether it's people or cargo.
This reminds me of the study done for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (http://downlode.org/Etext/wipp/#executivesummary) . The study looked at how to mark the site in such a way that the purpose of the site would be indicated for 10,000 years.
While the WIPP site won't have the benefit of constant updating of the media (it's designed to be survive on its own for 10,000 years) it does address some of the same points; longevity of the media, a format that will be usable into the future, and ability of future civilizations to understand the message.
At the same time, the number of consumer devices with Wi-Fi capability is multiplying (see BusinessWeek.com, 11/7/06, "Sony's Mylo: Mighty Weak"). As consumers move to muni Wi-Fi access, there's an opportunity for disrupting the online status quo: Users might be persuaded to switch not only their broadband providers but also their current home pages and Web search preferences.
Or perhaps, in order to use the wireless network, install "client" software that forces the changes in the search preferences or home page.
This may be true for John Q. Public who installs that "essential" Roadrunner CD that gives them a branded IE and Roadrunner homepage. For many of these users, they just don't know any better. They are the ones who always use a search engine to go to the same web site over and over again as opposed to typing in the URL or setting a bookmark. I consider a wireless connection just that; a CONNECTION. It's a connection to go where *I* want to go, and to use the search engine *I* want to use. If I have to use a particular client to use a wireless connection, I'll find another connection.
So for users like myself, this argument doesn't work.
By yearend, MetroFi's wireless broadband network will only cover two square miles around Portland's Pioneer Courthouse Square, with its bronze sculpture of a man with an umbrella and an ever-present Starbucks. Next year, though, MetroFi will offer a free, ad-supported service, as well as an ad-free, $19.95-a-month service, throughout much of Portland's 134 square miles.
Didn't cable TV start like this? You pay a subscription fee every month, and you get these wonderful cable channels that don't have advertising; they are supported by your subscription fees. I'm canceling cable because I don't like paying for channels to advertise to me; heck, late-night cable channels are nothing BUT "infomercials" and there's no way I'm paying for THAT.
The next question that would arise is: how long before the Wi-Fi access becomes ad-subsidized, in order to keep the "low low price of $19.95 per month"? A paid subscripting reduces the number of ads, but doesn't eliminate them. I mean, who has the deeper pockets, the public who would use this set-up or Madison Avenue?
I would like to see a study like this: what brings more revenue, a ad-supported model or subscription-based model.
Free, ad-based Wi-Fi networks are another option, also unproven. Research firm JupiterKagan has found that only 27% of free Wi-Fi users would be willing to see ads. "Advertising alone does not pay the bills," says Cole Reinwand, vice-president of product strategy and marketing at EarthLink, which will provide, together with Google, fee-based and ad-free services.
That's not how MetroFi sees it. It's sign-up rates for the free service are "an order of magnitude higher" than for fee-based Wi-Fi, reports Chuck Haas, MetroFi's CEO. "Obviously, free sells."
It depends on how you ask the question.
Q1: "Would you be willing to sign up for FREE wireless service in your area?"
Q2: "Would you be willing to view ads in exchange for free wireless service in your area?"
Regarding what Mr. Haas says about the fee-based vs. ad-based sign-up rates: if a user is signing up for a free service, but not the paid service, how long do you think that user will put up with the ads shown? How long will that user be an active user? How often will that user actually use the service? If something is free, it's easier to walk away from it, as you have lost nothing. If you pay for the service, it's because it's important enough to have it and you're less likely to walk away from it. Sure, "free" might get you "orders of magnitude" more subscribers, but 2-to-20 is just as much an "order of magnitude" jump as 10,000-to-100,000. Real, actual numbers would be more telling.
These days, most computers are networked and can accept software upgrades over the Internet. Also, most machines already possess software that allows them to run more efficiently--to "sleep" in a low-power mode when not in use--but few people enable this feature.
So, Microsoft should issue a software upgrade to every computer running Microsoft Windows worldwide. The upgrade would adjust the machine's energy-saving settings for maximum efficiency. Of course, this upgrade would have to allow critical systems to opt out. Nobody wants air traffic control computers to suddenly go into deep hibernation. But correcting for critical systems should be very simple for a company that churns out millions of lines of code every year.
These two paragraphs point towards the argument that such a forced "update" is a BAD idea.
First, the features are already there; if the users/administrators/whomever doesn't choose to activate the power-saving features for whatever reason, that is their decision. Perhaps I don't put my PC to sleep because I run some BOINC projects, or I use it often enough that the time and energy used coming out of sleep mode counters the savings, or it's a file/print server, or accessed remotely. In any event, it's my choice what those settings are.
Second, the second paragraph tells why this is a bad idea. How is MS going to know which systems are to "opt out" of the maximum energy saving settings? If you're going to pop up a dialog box to ask, then you might as well just have the dialog box point out how to make the changes manually.
Making computer hardware more efficient and "green" on a hardware level (materials, manufacturing processes, hardware power-saving features and the like) is a problem for the manufacturers. Making power-saving features available and easy to use on a software level is a problem for the software developers. Deciding which features to use and how to use them is, ultimately, up to the end users.
I will admit thought that the article has made me re-think my power-saving settings on a couple PCs I watch over, and I'll likely make some adjustments (esp since they are rarely used aside from the aforementioned BOINC projects). We bitch and moan about DRM and how we want to use our hardware/software as we see fit. While there is no DRM lockout here, isn't this the same idea, MS trying telling us how to power-manage our machines?
The page was probably written before Vista was RTM, so I'm not terribly surprised by this.
Yeah yeah yeah, the Zune is a MS product, and Vista is also a MS product, but really, are you going to tout a product as compatible with a certain bit of software before the software is finalized? If you are the head of the Zune project, are you more concerned with XP compatibility (an OS that is already out there) or Vista compatibility (which is still not finalized yet)?
I bet that within a few weeks, the Zune will be compatible with Vista, now that it is RTM'd (is that a word, "RTM'd"?)
Is this really an area we need more laws about? The dangers of cookies have been overblown for a long time. Not to mention that fact that all browsers give the user more than adequate control over their cookies.
Try browsing with cookies on an "ask me every time" sort of basis. Even the most unlikely websites will demand a cookie. What ever happened to sane usage of cookies where they'd only be set if you did something on the site that initiated a cookie transfer (e.g. logging in, starting a shopping cart, storing your preferences)?
That is exactly how I browse with Firefox. Then, when a cookie request pops up, I can check the "do this for every cookie this site wants to set" and the requests stop. Quite painless, really.
I agree that this is an area where the FCC can safely put on a lower priority. There are more than enough ways to deal with cookies that are already built into browsing software, and rather than try to solve the problem via legislation "please, Mr. Government official, protect me from my own ignorance/laziness" let's see if we can educate the populace so they can protect THEMSELVES.
Less dependence on government, more dependence on oneself.
Many years ago I also read a text file on how to get choice bacon cuts from a human, but that was more for the shock and curiousity value. I'm a vegetarian.
Was that before or after reading about choice bacon cuts?
If you had 1% of your yearly income stolen by mugging every year (Say, $350 if you make 35k), would that be ok?
To answer the question: of course not.
A mugging is where you are FORCED to give up your dough...buying a PC with Windows is not a mugging, since you can, with some time and effort, build your own to-spec PC without Windows and install your own OS on it. Furthermore, paying for a Windows license is a one-time thing, until the next version is released. I paid for a WinXP license on my laptop once, and once only, and I've had it for several years. Maybe site-licensing for businesses is different; I'm not familiar with that idea.
The original point is this: is getting the OEM cost of Windows refunded worth the time and effort? If I can make $50/hour doing some work, but I spend three hours getting a $50 refund on some purchase, is it worth the effort? Is the extra time and distance required to fill up at a gas station a mile down the road worth saving an extra two cents per gallon as opposed to the station I'm in front of now?
If I give up $10 in potential income to save $5, I still lose.
You are correct in that I don't understand the proposed system, and I DID in fact try to read the website and even watched the demonstration. The fact that I need a more than two lines to describe how to cast a vote already tells me that there are already too many layers of complexity.
Cryptography is not one of my fields of study, nor is computer engineering. Now, you take John Q. Public who can do email and some web surfing, and try to explain cryptography and electronic auditing and hacking, etc. Chances are they won't understand this whole process either.
And that, my friend, is where the problem lies. The process of casting and tabulating votes MUST be as transparent as possible. Your point about auditing software:
Your issue with the switching of the interpretation AFTER the ballot has been cast has been addressed by this system also. It involves cryptography (cryptological "commitments") and auditing before and after the election. Auditing that you can actually choose to do if you want to (e.g. even if you don't trust other peoples auditing software you could actually write your own, because the whole process is completely open).
Tell that to the auto mechanic at the corner service station. "Hey Jack, you want to make sure your vote was counted right? Go take some classes at the community college before the next election!"
It should not take a math degree or experience in cryptography to be able to verify the vote. For the love of all that is good, we're simply counting votes here, it's a very easy process to do with a minimum of overhead. Excruciatingly important that it is done correctly, but so incredibly easy to do at the same time. I, or any member of the public, should be able to watch the counting process and not have any question whatsoever about the choice made on each and every ballot.
Your big black X is far from foolproof. If it is read by a human he can easily make a mistake and put it in the wrong pile, either deliberately or by mistake. You would never know.
You make a true statement. That is why there are observers who watch the counting taking place, one from each party to prevent this sort of thing. Each observer is there to prevent these mistakes. You have, in essence, three people counting one ballot. A representative from each party cannot watch a machine count the votes, hell NOBODY can watch the machine count the votes. It's all bits inside a sealed box.
Like I said, I read the site, and couldn't figure it out. Maybe if I read it again and studied it, I might grasp it. But for counting votes, is this much complexity really needed?
Point taken...my point was that marking a ballot with an ink pen is about the simplest way you can make a choice. All this talk about "cryptography" and "electronic audits" just adds complexity to a process that doesn't need it. Paper and pen, anybody can understand them.
From the CNN story...http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/vot ing.problems.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
"History has shown that the machines are far more accurate than paper so we're quite confident in it," Cobb said. "There is absolutely no reason to believe that there will be any security issues, any hacking going on."
Apparently somebody doesn't pay attention to history. I recall more than a handful of reports where machines were recording negative votes, more votes than registered voters, and even in this very same story, machines not working and poll workers not knowing how to use them. Somebody also apparently didn't watch the "Hacking Democracy" documentary or those reports on hacking the Diebold machines.
Paper ballots don't crash, pens don't need instructions, and any damned fool can put the pen and ballot together, and the same damned fool can read and count them.
For those who say that there's no point in being a luddite and refusing to accept electronic voting, I say this: in this matter, I'll be a luddite, thankyouverymuch.
Remember, "To err is human; to really fuck it up takes a computer."
All the ballot half you keep records is that you voted A, B, B, A. All you can verify online is that your vote was recorded as A, B, B, A.
Great, I know my vote was recorded as A, B, B, A (I hope that wasn't a Freudian slip referring to the music group Abba), but how do I know that when my ballot is counted as A, B, B, A, that the order of the selections used to match up my ballot to my selections wasn't switched?
Anytime that you can separate the selection from the question and choices of answers, you introduce a means of switching the voter's desired selections for somebody else's selections. A big black "X" on a paper ballot next to the voter's selection is foolproof.
I don't give two shits about being able to carry out of the polling place proof of my vote; I want to verify my vote WHEN I CAST IT, by a means that CANNOT be misinterpreted.
Go read their faq. This system is better and simpler. It even allows potentially for ballots to be reconstructed from the receipts if the polling place was blown of the face of the earth.
Simpler? How do you get simpler than putting a big black "X" next to your selection on a ballot and dropping it in a locked box? Lining up holes, encrypted receipts, there is NO NEED to make things this complicated.
The submitted link goes to a reaction to a submitted comment regarding the proposal instead of the actual proposal itself.
No, I haven't read it in its entirety yet, but might as well read the proposal and draw your OWN conclusions instead of relying on somebody else's reaction to an interpretation.
I just looked at the pictures of the Zune for the first time...does anybody else think that it looks strikingly similar to an iPod, except for the different-colored "clickwheel" and larger screen relative to the "clickwheel"?
Not terribly original, I think.
Also, regarding the "wireless sharing"...it's simply a mechanism where the USERS serve the role of marketers and advertisers for content. There is no true "wireless sharing" here.
Every Zune device creates an opportunity for connection. Wireless Zune-to-Zune sharing lets consumers spontaneously share full-length sample tracks of select songs, homemade recordings, playlists or pictures with friends between Zune devices. Listen to the full track of any song you receive up to three times over three days. If you like a song you hear and want to buy it, you can flag it right on your device and easily purchase it from the Zune Marketplace.
Note the reference to "sample" tracks of "select" songs. Who selects them, the user or MS?
And further on down...
To get started with great music and videos out of the box, every Zune device is preloaded with content from record labels such as DTS, EMI Music's Astralwerks Records and Virgin Records, Ninja Tune, Playlouderecordings, Quango Music Group, Sub Pop Records, and V2/Artemis Records.
This reminds me of the desktop on new PCs and laptops, pre-loaded with trial software that repeatedly asks you to buy a license after some sort of trial period. I wonder how long this pre-loaded "content" goes before you have to pay or erase.
The Zune is a marketing tool, plain and simple--a marketing tool paid for by the users, to market to other users. I'll stick to my old 20 GB iPod, TYVM.
Yes, you need to update them, since they are networked, just not on the internet. You'll never know what kind of crap can get on one of these computers, even though the machines are separated by VLAN's as well.
I can see that, but at the same time, if the system is physically isolated from the Internet, then it is probably for a good reason--and this reason should also prevent any kind of crap from being introduced to the network in the first place. If "you'll never know what kind of crap" can be introduced to this isolated network, then I contend that there are other issues that need to be dealt with besides keeping the machines up to date, such as security procedures for preventing the introduction of unknown, untested, outside software to the network.
To change the search engine used throughout Mac OSX from Google to something else, you need a hex editor to hack some binary files.
How do you figure this? If I'm searching for anything "throughout Mac OSX" on my iBook, I use Spotlight.
If you are talking searching the INTERNET, it just took me three seconds to change the default search engine from Google to Yahoo in Firefox. Maybe you are talking about Safari, which I don't use so I can't comment on that.
Still, I don't see the basis for your comment. Please advise.
Slashdot Mirror
This part of the letter seems to have a dose of overacting to it:
Yeah, I'm sure that the gaia project was a threat to Google. A bit melodramatic, aren't you Mr. Jones?
Not having used Google Earth, what difference does it make accessing the images via the Google Earth API versus directly?
At the end of the contract? I've gotten phones unlocked for free before the end of the contract.
True story: I wanted to use my T-Mobile BlackBerry 7100t in Australia with a prepaid Aussie SIM where calling back to the US only cost 40 cents/minute instead of $1.25/minute using T-Mobile. Before I left, I called T-Mobile, told them I wanted to use an overseas prepaid SIM in my phone, and needed to unlock it.
They were going to email me the unlock instructions, but they never showed up (I'm assuming an honest glitch here). After two days I called back and got the instructions over the phone. Followed the instructions and wham-o, unlocked BlackBerry. Out comes the T-Mobile SIM, in goes the Vodafone AU SIM, and I'm on the Aussie GSM network with an Aussie number.
(BTW--you can unlock a BlackBerry to use other networks' voice and data services for things like web browsing, but email only works with the original carrier; RIM knows which carrier bought your unit and will only do email with your unit through their network.)
T-Mobile may be an exception, but I've never had to pay to get the phone unlocked. Sometimes you see a clause where a carrier won't unlock the phone for the first 90 days of a contract (can't remember the source).
The submitter probably assumed that all eight cameras were on one helmet, covering 360 degrees. It's like that party game where you tell a "secret" and wait to see how badly it gets mangled by the time it reaches the original source.
Nowhere in the original story or in the Register posting does it say anything about 360 degree coverage. Sure, it's 360 degrees--if the bobby wearing it does a little twirl.
Submitter doesn't read the submission, editors don't read the submission...just another day on
Right...I almost said that, but then I wasn't sure if passenger flights carried extra cargo like mail sacks, etc. There used to be a service on airlines where you could essentially buy your cargo a ticket on a particular flight so that you knew exactly when it would arrive at its destination, but I don't know if such a service still exists.
(and as has been pointed out, passenger flights don't have much extra room for extra cargo)
This uncertainty is why I suggested that a more fair comparison would be to examine how much fuel is burned per ton of cargo per mile of travel; that would be a more consistent comparison. After all, the original poster didn't take into account the luggage that the Escalade had to carry; the SUV was carrying LESS in terms of weight per passenger than the 747.
Those must be some damned complex antenna structures you're dealing with; I can run simulations using NEC-Win+ in far, far, far less than "months." I've simulated a helical antenna in about three minutes on a Dell notebook. I know other EM engineers that have simulated antennas on large, metal structures using NEC on time scales in the area of hours or maybe days, not months, using desktop PCs.
I recall playing a game back on an old Apple II+ called "Howitzer" that didn't take months to play. Doesn't a golf ball follow a simple ballistic path?
I'd be interested in knowing what you are looking for when you take months to simulate the EM field about an antenna, or claim that the path a golf ball takes through the air requires a supercomputer, because quite frankly, I think you're exxagerating a bit.
The only fault that comes to mind immediately with this argument is that the Escalade may be carrying eight passengers, but...where is their luggage? Can an Escalade carry eight passengers PLUS two suitcases per passenger (16 suitcases) PLUS a carry-on (eight more bags) PLUS that well-defined personal item (such as a laptop or briefcase, eight more small bags)?
I ask simply because I don't know the cargo capacity of an Escalade. A 747 will carry all that, plus that occasional extra/overweight baggage, without the need for a trailer or rooftop cargo box (both of which will cut your fuel economy considerably).
I think a more equivalent argument would be the fuel required to move a certain amount of mass from point a to point b; after all, that's what's being moved, whether it's people or cargo.
This reminds me of the study done for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (http://downlode.org/Etext/wipp/#executivesummary) . The study looked at how to mark the site in such a way that the purpose of the site would be indicated for 10,000 years.
While the WIPP site won't have the benefit of constant updating of the media (it's designed to be survive on its own for 10,000 years) it does address some of the same points; longevity of the media, a format that will be usable into the future, and ability of future civilizations to understand the message.
Off-topic perhaps but an interesting read.
FTA:
Or perhaps, in order to use the wireless network, install "client" software that forces the changes in the search preferences or home page.
This may be true for John Q. Public who installs that "essential" Roadrunner CD that gives them a branded IE and Roadrunner homepage. For many of these users, they just don't know any better. They are the ones who always use a search engine to go to the same web site over and over again as opposed to typing in the URL or setting a bookmark. I consider a wireless connection just that; a CONNECTION. It's a connection to go where *I* want to go, and to use the search engine *I* want to use. If I have to use a particular client to use a wireless connection, I'll find another connection.
So for users like myself, this argument doesn't work.
Didn't cable TV start like this? You pay a subscription fee every month, and you get these wonderful cable channels that don't have advertising; they are supported by your subscription fees. I'm canceling cable because I don't like paying for channels to advertise to me; heck, late-night cable channels are nothing BUT "infomercials" and there's no way I'm paying for THAT.
The next question that would arise is: how long before the Wi-Fi access becomes ad-subsidized, in order to keep the "low low price of $19.95 per month"? A paid subscripting reduces the number of ads, but doesn't eliminate them. I mean, who has the deeper pockets, the public who would use this set-up or Madison Avenue?
I would like to see a study like this: what brings more revenue, a ad-supported model or subscription-based model.
It depends on how you ask the question.
Q1: "Would you be willing to sign up for FREE wireless service in your area?"
Q2: "Would you be willing to view ads in exchange for free wireless service in your area?"
Regarding what Mr. Haas says about the fee-based vs. ad-based sign-up rates: if a user is signing up for a free service, but not the paid service, how long do you think that user will put up with the ads shown? How long will that user be an active user? How often will that user actually use the service? If something is free, it's easier to walk away from it, as you have lost nothing. If you pay for the service, it's because it's important enough to have it and you're less likely to walk away from it. Sure, "free" might get you "orders of magnitude" more subscribers, but 2-to-20 is just as much an "order of magnitude" jump as 10,000-to-100,000. Real, actual numbers would be more telling.
These two paragraphs point towards the argument that such a forced "update" is a BAD idea.
First, the features are already there; if the users/administrators/whomever doesn't choose to activate the power-saving features for whatever reason, that is their decision. Perhaps I don't put my PC to sleep because I run some BOINC projects, or I use it often enough that the time and energy used coming out of sleep mode counters the savings, or it's a file/print server, or accessed remotely. In any event, it's my choice what those settings are.
Second, the second paragraph tells why this is a bad idea. How is MS going to know which systems are to "opt out" of the maximum energy saving settings? If you're going to pop up a dialog box to ask, then you might as well just have the dialog box point out how to make the changes manually.
Making computer hardware more efficient and "green" on a hardware level (materials, manufacturing processes, hardware power-saving features and the like) is a problem for the manufacturers. Making power-saving features available and easy to use on a software level is a problem for the software developers. Deciding which features to use and how to use them is, ultimately, up to the end users.
I will admit thought that the article has made me re-think my power-saving settings on a couple PCs I watch over, and I'll likely make some adjustments (esp since they are rarely used aside from the aforementioned BOINC projects). We bitch and moan about DRM and how we want to use our hardware/software as we see fit. While there is no DRM lockout here, isn't this the same idea, MS trying telling us how to power-manage our machines?
The page was probably written before Vista was RTM, so I'm not terribly surprised by this.
Yeah yeah yeah, the Zune is a MS product, and Vista is also a MS product, but really, are you going to tout a product as compatible with a certain bit of software before the software is finalized? If you are the head of the Zune project, are you more concerned with XP compatibility (an OS that is already out there) or Vista compatibility (which is still not finalized yet)?
I bet that within a few weeks, the Zune will be compatible with Vista, now that it is RTM'd (is that a word, "RTM'd"?)
That is exactly how I browse with Firefox. Then, when a cookie request pops up, I can check the "do this for every cookie this site wants to set" and the requests stop. Quite painless, really.
I agree that this is an area where the FCC can safely put on a lower priority. There are more than enough ways to deal with cookies that are already built into browsing software, and rather than try to solve the problem via legislation "please, Mr. Government official, protect me from my own ignorance/laziness" let's see if we can educate the populace so they can protect THEMSELVES.
Less dependence on government, more dependence on oneself.
The next Google app---"Google Symphony"
Was that before or after reading about choice bacon cuts?
"Need Those Patents"?
"Need To Prosecute"? (Not sure if this term is right for a civil case)
"Naughty Tech Parasites"?
Good point...I overlooked the laptop part of it, my bad.
To answer the question: of course not.
A mugging is where you are FORCED to give up your dough...buying a PC with Windows is not a mugging, since you can, with some time and effort, build your own to-spec PC without Windows and install your own OS on it. Furthermore, paying for a Windows license is a one-time thing, until the next version is released. I paid for a WinXP license on my laptop once, and once only, and I've had it for several years. Maybe site-licensing for businesses is different; I'm not familiar with that idea.
The original point is this: is getting the OEM cost of Windows refunded worth the time and effort? If I can make $50/hour doing some work, but I spend three hours getting a $50 refund on some purchase, is it worth the effort? Is the extra time and distance required to fill up at a gas station a mile down the road worth saving an extra two cents per gallon as opposed to the station I'm in front of now?
If I give up $10 in potential income to save $5, I still lose.
Cryptography is not one of my fields of study, nor is computer engineering. Now, you take John Q. Public who can do email and some web surfing, and try to explain cryptography and electronic auditing and hacking, etc. Chances are they won't understand this whole process either.
And that, my friend, is where the problem lies. The process of casting and tabulating votes MUST be as transparent as possible. Your point about auditing software:
Tell that to the auto mechanic at the corner service station. "Hey Jack, you want to make sure your vote was counted right? Go take some classes at the community college before the next election!"
It should not take a math degree or experience in cryptography to be able to verify the vote. For the love of all that is good, we're simply counting votes here, it's a very easy process to do with a minimum of overhead. Excruciatingly important that it is done correctly, but so incredibly easy to do at the same time. I, or any member of the public, should be able to watch the counting process and not have any question whatsoever about the choice made on each and every ballot.
You make a true statement. That is why there are observers who watch the counting taking place, one from each party to prevent this sort of thing. Each observer is there to prevent these mistakes. You have, in essence, three people counting one ballot. A representative from each party cannot watch a machine count the votes, hell NOBODY can watch the machine count the votes. It's all bits inside a sealed box.
Like I said, I read the site, and couldn't figure it out. Maybe if I read it again and studied it, I might grasp it. But for counting votes, is this much complexity really needed?
Point taken...my point was that marking a ballot with an ink pen is about the simplest way you can make a choice. All this talk about "cryptography" and "electronic audits" just adds complexity to a process that doesn't need it. Paper and pen, anybody can understand them.
Apparently somebody doesn't pay attention to history. I recall more than a handful of reports where machines were recording negative votes, more votes than registered voters, and even in this very same story, machines not working and poll workers not knowing how to use them. Somebody also apparently didn't watch the "Hacking Democracy" documentary or those reports on hacking the Diebold machines.
Paper ballots don't crash, pens don't need instructions, and any damned fool can put the pen and ballot together, and the same damned fool can read and count them.
For those who say that there's no point in being a luddite and refusing to accept electronic voting, I say this: in this matter, I'll be a luddite, thankyouverymuch.
Remember, "To err is human; to really fuck it up takes a computer."
Great, I know my vote was recorded as A, B, B, A (I hope that wasn't a Freudian slip referring to the music group Abba), but how do I know that when my ballot is counted as A, B, B, A, that the order of the selections used to match up my ballot to my selections wasn't switched?
Anytime that you can separate the selection from the question and choices of answers, you introduce a means of switching the voter's desired selections for somebody else's selections. A big black "X" on a paper ballot next to the voter's selection is foolproof.
I don't give two shits about being able to carry out of the polling place proof of my vote; I want to verify my vote WHEN I CAST IT, by a means that CANNOT be misinterpreted.
Simpler? How do you get simpler than putting a big black "X" next to your selection on a ballot and dropping it in a locked box? Lining up holes, encrypted receipts, there is NO NEED to make things this complicated.
Remember: KISS
...read the actual proposed rules at
e r?objectId=090000648019da96&disposition=attachment &contentType=pdf
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentView
The submitted link goes to a reaction to a submitted comment regarding the proposal instead of the actual proposal itself.
No, I haven't read it in its entirety yet, but might as well read the proposal and draw your OWN conclusions instead of relying on somebody else's reaction to an interpretation.
Not terribly original, I think.
Also, regarding the "wireless sharing"...it's simply a mechanism where the USERS serve the role of marketers and advertisers for content. There is no true "wireless sharing" here.
From http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/sep
Note the reference to "sample" tracks of "select" songs. Who selects them, the user or MS?
And further on down...
This reminds me of the desktop on new PCs and laptops, pre-loaded with trial software that repeatedly asks you to buy a license after some sort of trial period. I wonder how long this pre-loaded "content" goes before you have to pay or erase.
The Zune is a marketing tool, plain and simple--a marketing tool paid for by the users, to market to other users. I'll stick to my old 20 GB iPod, TYVM.
Thoughts?
I can see that, but at the same time, if the system is physically isolated from the Internet, then it is probably for a good reason--and this reason should also prevent any kind of crap from being introduced to the network in the first place. If "you'll never know what kind of crap" can be introduced to this isolated network, then I contend that there are other issues that need to be dealt with besides keeping the machines up to date, such as security procedures for preventing the introduction of unknown, untested, outside software to the network.
How do you figure this? If I'm searching for anything "throughout Mac OSX" on my iBook, I use Spotlight.
If you are talking searching the INTERNET, it just took me three seconds to change the default search engine from Google to Yahoo in Firefox. Maybe you are talking about Safari, which I don't use so I can't comment on that.
Still, I don't see the basis for your comment. Please advise.