Actually, suing in their own courts is a possibility, too. The idea is to raise awareness of the issue to a level that it can't be ignored, no matter where litigation is brought. Then it becomes an international matter.
I understand what he's talking about; I am just not very optimistic that it will come to pass. As far as the right to bear arms, I am not sure it will do much good if you have a shotgun and your pursuer is in a tank!
Well, the FBI already has such a monitoring system in place with ISPs called Carnivore. They must secure permission from a judge to use the system to track specific individuals. This is how it should work. My concern would be that the current administration wants broad powers to spy on anyone they want, without judicial oversight. That would be truly Orwellian. IIRC, the USA PATRIOT Act already loosened up some of these restrictions, especially where it involves foreign nationals. How much more power do they want or need? How much more monitoring is reasonable for citizens in an allegedly "free" society to tolerate?
I don't know about suing the United States; I don't know that citizens of other lands would have standing in our courts. Maybe if you incorporate, you might have a chance.:c) Otherwise, I would consider lobbying your government officials to make privacy an issue in the next round of the World Trade Organization. The U.S. government has made intellectual property a big issue over the past 10+ years, so that our corporations could make outlandish profits on software and movies; it's time that people stood up for their privacy as a personal right and demand that it be treated for what it is-- personal property.
Your author's notion of two-way transparency might be workable in theory. As we have seen down through history, however, it has never worked out that way. Usually, it works like this:
KNOWLEDGE == POWER
POWER == ABUSE OF POWER
We have a government in power, by virtue of the U.S. Supreme Court, who believes in secrecy, not transparency. The believe in using the power of the government in the pursuit of "national security". It reminds me of Joseph McCarthy's pursuit of individuals who might be "communists" or even possess a slight interest in ideas that might be "socialistic". It also reminds me of "Tricky Dick" Nixon and his use of government instrumentalities against his perceived political opponents or threats to his power(Daniel Ellsberg, Ed Muskie, the Watergate thing). The current Bush Administration, through the USA PATRIOT Act, has the power and the inclination to pursue perceived "terrorist" threats to the nation through surveillance that is not even subject to search warrant or the assent of a judge. People often complain that judges are gumming up the work of the executive and legislative branches of government; this is a situation where they would at least provide an appropriate check on the executive from the abuse of power.
Mr. Brin's idea is a good one, but is hopelessly idealistic.I much prefer a government with limited powers to keep tabs on individuals, unless there is a probable cause to believe that someone is up to no good. The way the Bush regime has been carrying on, the terrorists must feel that they have won.
Unfortunately, the FTC's do-not-call list doesn't cover all businesses, either. If it isn't regulated by the FTC (i.e, financial services), they aren't covered. However, the FCC is about to promulgate their own "do not call" list, that covers the rest... so, stay tuned. Personally, the calls from the *&#@! banks (who I have credit cards with) are the ones who call me the most, and therefore wouldn't be affected by the FTC action. So I'm waiting, Commissioner Powell...
Precisely, it has to do with control over the viewers and their ability to view movies or other content on DTV. Thing is, DTV is not cable or satellite, it's broadcast TV which is supposed to be available to everyone. No restrictions. This is about the movie industry's attempt to gain control over DTV and probably will make you pay for the privilege of being able to watch it.
In the U.S., the broadcast spectrum belongs to the public; broadcast stations are operating as "public trustees". Theoretically, anything that is broadcast must be available to anyone with a TV set that can receive the signal. Nobody should be allowed to turn broadcast TV into pay TV, or be allowed to restrict the ability of individuals to access the broadcast airwaves. If this smart card proposal were applied to digital broadcasts, we have in effect created a TV caste system.
Here in the states, this is not how it was supposed to work. The expectation with digital TV was that it would be a broadcast medium, and the spectrum is considered to be operated by broadcasters who are operating as a public trustee. This is how it's supposed to work in theory. We have been promised a range of services, from high definition broadcasting, which is just taking off, to simulcasting up to four channels over the expanded bandwidth (which is what our local PBS station said they wanted to do). Now comes $Hollywood and their demand to be in charge of this technology. If I want just movies and don't mind paying for the privilege of getting them, I'll subscribe to cable and HBO. I don't want that, I want expanded programming choices and a much improved signal. This is what digital TV was supposed to deliver, not another channel for the content providers to extract more quid from viewers.
More to the point, will we need to pay for the privilege of buying the smartcard so we can watch digital TV? IIRC, digital TV was supposed to be a free, broadcast medium, available to everybody, just like analog broadcasting. Why is it necessary to have some kind of technology to control who is watching? More to the point, if the copying of digital content so bothers the movie studios, why don't they just opt not to release their flicks for digital broadcast? Oh, that's right, Jack Valenti and Co. threatened to take their toys and go home from the digital party unless something was done. This really scared the broadcasters and electronics makers.
Apparently, this was that "something." It could be used to extract payments from folks with digital TVs; I guess they feel they can't get these couch potatoes to go to the cinema or get up and go to Blockbuster and buy DVDs. Once again, it's all about control and DRM (Digital Reach for your Money). If these measures are necessary, why is it that the movie studios don't seem to mind if their product (rubbish, for the most part) is broadcast on analog TV all the time? Even after the Betamax case, they don't seem to mind that one can record movies on a VCR-- that is a copy, right? (no pun intended) I am rather surprised that they allow their flicks to be broadcast, rather than lose all that revenue.
All I conclude is that these industries aren't serving my interests as a potential customer. Once again, Big Media has attempted to put their grubby fingers on emerging technology.
Firstly, I have every bit as much control over my Windows-powered computers (two XP Pro, one 2k Server) as I need, with more control waiting to be seized should I ever need it.
Let's talk about a different kind of control here-- Microsoft's control over your machines and mine. Have you installed SP3 on your Win2k boxes? SP1 on your XP boxes? If you have, the EULA you signed off on gives MS admin rights on your machine. I have two Win2k machines on my home network, neither of which have SP3 installed, precisely because I prefer to remain in control of my Windows computers instead of ceding control to MS. I realize that their licensing is such that we don't really own Windows, we just lease it, but I prefer not to have their prying electronic eyes in my personal network.
I have made the decision to move away from VS because I don't like the effect of.net-- to lock me as a developer, and my clients/employer, into a Windows-only environment. I also don't like how unresponsive MS is every time a new bug/security hole is discovered. Compared to folks in the open source world, their behavior in trying to cover up problems is shameful.
I don't hate Microsoft-- I just don't the like the way they do business anymore, and I have made a decision to move away from their products and platforms. This is not about money-- it is about control-- who has control over one's computers and the software that one owns. To the extent that MS is acting in the manner that they are, they are trying to seize control over individuals' and enterprises' computers wherever Windows runs.
I think you're right-- wireless services of some kind would be the logical buyers of fiber networks, when the price is right-- they wouldn't have to build infrastructure from scratch.
This is where fiber to the home would make the difference. For me, I'd love to have DSL, but I am too far from the CO (just 510 feet over, dammit!) to get ADSL. The only service I might be able to get is IDSL, which is only 144 kbps up and down. For about $10 less per month, I could get ISDN, but I feel, why bother? For the time being, it will have to be cable when I get a broadband connection. We are still a few years away from widespread wireless internet-- it does need more security from "warchalking". But in some places, it runs as much as 3x faster than DSL.
One wonders if this experience isn't an argument for reregulation of telecom to some extent. The rail boom and bust led to the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission (now defunct), and the FCC resulted from the conflicts between radio stations over frequencies and service. If the FCC were more empowered to oversee the operation of fiber networks, it might provide the opportunity to promote more use. But it seems to me that wireless might end up serving the last mile.
I think that the telco monopoly is half the story. Fiber is still expensive to access directly, and still expensive to lay out in a LAN, as the CNN article points out. Cheaper technologies, like wireless, might well leap ahead of fiber in the race to more bandwidth. I think most telcos think of the fiber network as their backbone, and they don't really market it as a service for business. This is a situation where the "last mile" is still the problem-- fiber is not laid for the whole network.
The truth is, TCO is going to vary from organization to org. It really depends on what the computing needs of the org. are. What makes sense for one company doesn't make sense for another. The issue I feel is becoming more important is, who controls the computing infrastructure and environment in the enterprise? Relying on an all-MS or mostly-MS environment forces one to confront these issues. Do I want MS dictating what I or my clients use in terms of desktop, office, or server products, because there might be some kind of licensing deal? Or do I want to control the infrastructure and environment, and not have to upgrade to Windows version whatever with SP umpteen? Also, should I make myself subject to when MS thinks that a known security problem is "critical" enough to issue a patch? Finally, do I allow them to have ADMIN rights on my machine just for the privilege of downloading a service pack? I think that a study commissioned by Microsoft is highly suspect, and can't be considered "impartial" or "unbiased". As for the methodology, I don't have enough dough lying around to buy IDC's study to find out-- and knowing what I know, I don't really care.
The repeated publicity that the MS-sponsored study from IDC has recieved, followed by this study from Meta, is beginning to bother me. TCO isn't everything; as we have seen from the events of the past year, Microsoft has done a lot to change its licensing program and piss off a lot of its customers in the process. It's about control, baby. As in, Microsoft holds all the cards in this poker game. Don't be fooled; why would they give up on their biggest cash cow-- Windows? Why would they port their second biggest cash cow-- Office-- to Linux? Star Office and OpenOffice have already figured out how to open up MS Office formats for.doc,.xls, and.ppt.
In the same vein,.net is just a strategy to hold their developers in place, and to try to attract developers from the Java world. They have adopted a Java-like language runtime..net runs only on Windows and FreeBSD, and the BSD port, as well as the Common Language Infrastructure, have a subset of the classes that are available under the Win32 CLR. Don't expect to see a port to Linux or other *nixes.
Okay,folks, this topic raises the question in my mind of which GUI toolkit will produce the best, "friendliest" interface. My interest, is in finding out what you all think will work as the best toolkit for developing apps that have a GUI that can be deployed across platforms. I am considering learning Java swing and/or TKInter (and my language of choice would be Python).
What do you think? If you have experience with either of these (or one I haven't considered), let me know.
It just so happens that I am reading a book called Digitopia by Richard DeGrandpre. In it he says that the collection of images that we view, whether it's on TV, in the movies, or online, fundamentally alters our brain chemistry in a way that causes us to behave differently than if we had not been exposed to such a stimulus. A typical person has watched thousands of commercials on TV, or seen thousands of banner ads if you have done any surfing of the Web. His implications are that we are moving toward a virtual world-- with virtual selves. He cites The Matrix as being an example of an alternative future for mankind-- a kind of "homework lesson" for what might be the shape of things to come.
So, the notion of "neuromarketing" doesn't seem so fantastic to me-- it just shows how brazen some corporations are that they would contemplate using it. As for the images that we have been exposed to in our media viewing, it rots away our humanity-- real life becomes not good enough, not fast enough, for the "jacked in" user. Digitopia has me questioning all of the things I am doing, or want to do, with IT. DeGrandpre paints a picture of a human world that is moving toward virtuality, to the exclusion of any kind of social sphere. His view is that we have rotted away the social sphere we had before visual media came along, too. "Neuromarketing" is just part of the package, even though it seems to be more pernicious than regular marketing or any other media content. Contrast this view with The Cluetrain Manifesto, whose authors believed that the Internet was a liberating vehicle for self-expression.
Microsoft didn't "[need] cooperation from outside sources to pull their stunts". They greenmailed and coerced the vendors to install only Windoze on their machines-- this is a finding by the federal courts that is not in dispute. The notion that "the majority of the market wanted MS to be the standard" presumes that the vendors/retailers could make a choice. No choice == monopoly. As for Gateway, they are a bunch of flueless cucks (translate) who won't build anything but a Wintel box. If they offered Linux or something else on their machines, it would likely be up to the vendor of that OS to support it, not Gateway. BTW, forcing vendors to support Windoze must be a pretty good deal for MS-- they don't have to pay for tech support directly. But I think it's a super bad deal for the typical user.
Yes, OJ would be able to testify that Bill Gates, because he extracts monopoly rents from his customers, can in fact afford those Bruno Magli shoes OJ made so famous.:-B
I have recently started to fully use Yahoo to give me a portal to a lot of the stuff from their site. I am preparing to abandon Hotmail and pAssport-- the Hotmail account is full of nothing but spam anymore, and one really can't stop it-- I think you can only have 250 or 500 addresses on your block list. So, I am moving everything that I used my Hotmail account for to Yahoo. There really isn't much of a need otherwise for me to use pAssport-- I used it to access (of course!) a.net user group site, but I have jumped ship on.net, so I won't need it anymore. When you think about it, Yahoo or some other portal/content provider has just as much of an opportunity to create a single sign-on service, instead of a software vendor-- it really has to be driven by the needs of users instead of just what product the vendors have to offer. Where it comes to security and spam prevention, MS just doesn't rate in my eyes.
Opportunity for Open Source
on
More on Longhorn
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Obviously, Longhorn is not going to come out as early as 2004-- the PI article is at least fair enough to quote another source who knows better than to believe the MS PR. Since the new OS is not likely to be out for another three years, this is a chance for the open source community to make its case to the public of why it should try its products.
The first case for open source will be, "You don't have to give up your old computer!" We already know that Linux and other OSs can be installed on x86 hardware; it has to be easy to install, and it has to have all the other things that people are accustomed to having on their machines. Finally, it has to have programs that are compatible with common file formats, like MS Office. With OpenOffice, that last need has largely been fulfilled, where it comes to productivity.
What would also be helpful is to pitch open source products to hardware manufacturers, as a way to sell more units. If not to the consumer market, then to the business market. Having Linux pre-installed on machines would make the transition to open source a lot easier for the enterprise. Of course, with Longhorn, the promise for the HW people is that they can sell a lot more units in the future with Longhorn. But, in the meantime, they may be struggling with machines that can only be loaded with warmed over versions of XP.
The other thing that has to happen is that people need to be made aware of what DRM really represents. If you don't like MS having admin rights on your machine (as they do with the latest SPs on Win 2k and XP), you sure as hell won't like DRM-enabling Palladium. It's about freedom, and I think a simple slogan on a T-shirt to get this home could be: "DRM=Total Information Awareness". "Trusted Computing" is just a slogan, when the count on security patches for Windows and related products this year is 65; for open source, it's closer to 10. Which do you think is more "trustworthy"?
Re:Bearer of bad news
on
More on Longhorn
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The timeframe that's quoted in the PI article is optimistic-- MS probably isn't going to get Longhorn out the door until late '05/'06. In the meantime, there's a window of opportunity for other OS platforms to keep revving, and to appeal to hardware manufacturers to offer a pre-installed version of Linux, like what Wal-Mart is doing for Lindows and Mandrake. MS has given OSS this opportunity to get a bigger foothold in the marketplace. They need to take advantage of it.
I could never understand the appeal of AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, or MSN as "content providers". Much of what they have on their sites is available elsewhere, either anonymously or by registering at another site. Of course, I didn't really get into being online until the 'Net and WWW was available, so I never saw the original private online services. I think this is the first step toward Time Warner using AOL as a delivery channel for digital content. Of course, one will have to pay to use such a service, just like HBO. AOL needs to get on the cluetrain: if it believes that it will make money or endear itself to its customers with this move, they're smoking something. The Internet is for self-expression, not the delivery of Hollywood's trash.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, suing in their own courts is a possibility, too. The idea is to raise awareness of the issue to a level that it can't be ignored, no matter where litigation is brought. Then it becomes an international matter.
I understand what he's talking about; I am just not very optimistic that it will come to pass. As far as the right to bear arms, I am not sure it will do much good if you have a shotgun and your pursuer is in a tank!
Well, the FBI already has such a monitoring system in place with ISPs called Carnivore. They must secure permission from a judge to use the system to track specific individuals. This is how it should work. My concern would be that the current administration wants broad powers to spy on anyone they want, without judicial oversight. That would be truly Orwellian. IIRC, the USA PATRIOT Act already loosened up some of these restrictions, especially where it involves foreign nationals. How much more power do they want or need? How much more monitoring is reasonable for citizens in an allegedly "free" society to tolerate?
I don't know about suing the United States; I don't know that citizens of other lands would have standing in our courts. Maybe if you incorporate, you might have a chance. :c) Otherwise, I would consider lobbying your government officials to make privacy an issue in the next round of the World Trade Organization. The U.S. government has made intellectual property a big issue over the past 10+ years, so that our corporations could make outlandish profits on software and movies; it's time that people stood up for their privacy as a personal right and demand that it be treated for what it is-- personal property.
Your author's notion of two-way transparency might be workable in theory. As we have seen down through history, however, it has never worked out that way. Usually, it works like this:
KNOWLEDGE == POWER
POWER == ABUSE OF POWER
We have a government in power, by virtue of the U.S. Supreme Court, who believes in secrecy, not transparency. The believe in using the power of the government in the pursuit of "national security". It reminds me of Joseph McCarthy's pursuit of individuals who might be "communists" or even possess a slight interest in ideas that might be "socialistic". It also reminds me of "Tricky Dick" Nixon and his use of government instrumentalities against his perceived political opponents or threats to his power(Daniel Ellsberg, Ed Muskie, the Watergate thing). The current Bush Administration, through the USA PATRIOT Act, has the power and the inclination to pursue perceived "terrorist" threats to the nation through surveillance that is not even subject to search warrant or the assent of a judge. People often complain that judges are gumming up the work of the executive and legislative branches of government; this is a situation where they would at least provide an appropriate check on the executive from the abuse of power.
Mr. Brin's idea is a good one, but is hopelessly idealistic.I much prefer a government with limited powers to keep tabs on individuals, unless there is a probable cause to believe that someone is up to no good. The way the Bush regime has been carrying on, the terrorists must feel that they have won.
Unfortunately, the FTC's do-not-call list doesn't cover all businesses, either. If it isn't regulated by the FTC (i.e, financial services), they aren't covered. However, the FCC is about to promulgate their own "do not call" list, that covers the rest... so, stay tuned. Personally, the calls from the *&#@! banks (who I have credit cards with) are the ones who call me the most, and therefore wouldn't be affected by the FTC action. So I'm waiting, Commissioner Powell...
Have you heard of Eldred v. Ashcroft?
This has nothing to do with copy-control.
Precisely, it has to do with control over the viewers and their ability to view movies or other content on DTV. Thing is, DTV is not cable or satellite, it's broadcast TV which is supposed to be available to everyone. No restrictions. This is about the movie industry's attempt to gain control over DTV and probably will make you pay for the privilege of being able to watch it.
In the U.S., the broadcast spectrum belongs to the public; broadcast stations are operating as "public trustees". Theoretically, anything that is broadcast must be available to anyone with a TV set that can receive the signal. Nobody should be allowed to turn broadcast TV into pay TV, or be allowed to restrict the ability of individuals to access the broadcast airwaves. If this smart card proposal were applied to digital broadcasts, we have in effect created a TV caste system.
Here in the states, this is not how it was supposed to work. The expectation with digital TV was that it would be a broadcast medium, and the spectrum is considered to be operated by broadcasters who are operating as a public trustee. This is how it's supposed to work in theory. We have been promised a range of services, from high definition broadcasting, which is just taking off, to simulcasting up to four channels over the expanded bandwidth (which is what our local PBS station said they wanted to do). Now comes $Hollywood and their demand to be in charge of this technology. If I want just movies and don't mind paying for the privilege of getting them, I'll subscribe to cable and HBO. I don't want that, I want expanded programming choices and a much improved signal. This is what digital TV was supposed to deliver, not another channel for the content providers to extract more quid from viewers.
More to the point, will we need to pay for the privilege of buying the smartcard so we can watch digital TV? IIRC, digital TV was supposed to be a free, broadcast medium, available to everybody, just like analog broadcasting. Why is it necessary to have some kind of technology to control who is watching? More to the point, if the copying of digital content so bothers the movie studios, why don't they just opt not to release their flicks for digital broadcast? Oh, that's right, Jack Valenti and Co. threatened to take their toys and go home from the digital party unless something was done. This really scared the broadcasters and electronics makers.
Apparently, this was that "something." It could be used to extract payments from folks with digital TVs; I guess they feel they can't get these couch potatoes to go to the cinema or get up and go to Blockbuster and buy DVDs. Once again, it's all about control and DRM (Digital Reach for your Money). If these measures are necessary, why is it that the movie studios don't seem to mind if their product (rubbish, for the most part) is broadcast on analog TV all the time? Even after the Betamax case, they don't seem to mind that one can record movies on a VCR-- that is a copy, right? (no pun intended) I am rather surprised that they allow their flicks to be broadcast, rather than lose all that revenue.
All I conclude is that these industries aren't serving my interests as a potential customer. Once again, Big Media has attempted to put their grubby fingers on emerging technology.
Firstly, I have every bit as much control over my Windows-powered computers (two XP Pro, one 2k Server) as I need, with more control waiting to be seized should I ever need it.
Let's talk about a different kind of control here-- Microsoft's control over your machines and mine. Have you installed SP3 on your Win2k boxes? SP1 on your XP boxes? If you have, the EULA you signed off on gives MS admin rights on your machine. I have two Win2k machines on my home network, neither of which have SP3 installed, precisely because I prefer to remain in control of my Windows computers instead of ceding control to MS. I realize that their licensing is such that we don't really own Windows, we just lease it, but I prefer not to have their prying electronic eyes in my personal network.
I have made the decision to move away from VS because I don't like the effect of .net-- to lock me as a developer, and my clients/employer, into a Windows-only environment. I also don't like how unresponsive MS is every time a new bug/security hole is discovered. Compared to folks in the open source world, their behavior in trying to cover up problems is shameful.
I don't hate Microsoft-- I just don't the like the way they do business anymore, and I have made a decision to move away from their products and platforms. This is not about money-- it is about control-- who has control over one's computers and the software that one owns. To the extent that MS is acting in the manner that they are, they are trying to seize control over individuals' and enterprises' computers wherever Windows runs.
I think you're right-- wireless services of some kind would be the logical buyers of fiber networks, when the price is right-- they wouldn't have to build infrastructure from scratch.
This is where fiber to the home would make the difference. For me, I'd love to have DSL, but I am too far from the CO (just 510 feet over, dammit!) to get ADSL. The only service I might be able to get is IDSL, which is only 144 kbps up and down. For about $10 less per month, I could get ISDN, but I feel, why bother? For the time being, it will have to be cable when I get a broadband connection. We are still a few years away from widespread wireless internet-- it does need more security from "warchalking". But in some places, it runs as much as 3x faster than DSL.
One wonders if this experience isn't an argument for reregulation of telecom to some extent. The rail boom and bust led to the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission (now defunct), and the FCC resulted from the conflicts between radio stations over frequencies and service. If the FCC were more empowered to oversee the operation of fiber networks, it might provide the opportunity to promote more use. But it seems to me that wireless might end up serving the last mile.
I think that the telco monopoly is half the story. Fiber is still expensive to access directly, and still expensive to lay out in a LAN, as the CNN article points out. Cheaper technologies, like wireless, might well leap ahead of fiber in the race to more bandwidth. I think most telcos think of the fiber network as their backbone, and they don't really market it as a service for business. This is a situation where the "last mile" is still the problem-- fiber is not laid for the whole network.
The truth is, TCO is going to vary from organization to org. It really depends on what the computing needs of the org. are. What makes sense for one company doesn't make sense for another. The issue I feel is becoming more important is, who controls the computing infrastructure and environment in the enterprise? Relying on an all-MS or mostly-MS environment forces one to confront these issues. Do I want MS dictating what I or my clients use in terms of desktop, office, or server products, because there might be some kind of licensing deal? Or do I want to control the infrastructure and environment, and not have to upgrade to Windows version whatever with SP umpteen? Also, should I make myself subject to when MS thinks that a known security problem is "critical" enough to issue a patch? Finally, do I allow them to have ADMIN rights on my machine just for the privilege of downloading a service pack? I think that a study commissioned by Microsoft is highly suspect, and can't be considered "impartial" or "unbiased". As for the methodology, I don't have enough dough lying around to buy IDC's study to find out-- and knowing what I know, I don't really care.
The repeated publicity that the MS-sponsored study from IDC has recieved, followed by this study from Meta, is beginning to bother me. TCO isn't everything; as we have seen from the events of the past year, Microsoft has done a lot to change its licensing program and piss off a lot of its customers in the process. It's about control, baby. As in, Microsoft holds all the cards in this poker game. Don't be fooled; why would they give up on their biggest cash cow-- Windows? Why would they port their second biggest cash cow-- Office-- to Linux? Star Office and OpenOffice have already figured out how to open up MS Office formats for .doc, .xls, and .ppt.
In the same vein, .net is just a strategy to hold their developers in place, and to try to attract developers from the Java world. They have adopted a Java-like language runtime. .net runs only on Windows and FreeBSD, and the BSD port, as well as the Common Language Infrastructure, have a subset of the classes that are available under the Win32 CLR. Don't expect to see a port to Linux or other *nixes.
The Times story has got to be pure speculation.
Okay,folks, this topic raises the question in my mind of which GUI toolkit will produce the best, "friendliest" interface. My interest, is in finding out what you all think will work as the best toolkit for developing apps that have a GUI that can be deployed across platforms. I am considering learning Java swing and/or TKInter (and my language of choice would be Python).
What do you think? If you have experience with either of these (or one I haven't considered), let me know.
It just so happens that I am reading a book called Digitopia by Richard DeGrandpre. In it he says that the collection of images that we view, whether it's on TV, in the movies, or online, fundamentally alters our brain chemistry in a way that causes us to behave differently than if we had not been exposed to such a stimulus. A typical person has watched thousands of commercials on TV, or seen thousands of banner ads if you have done any surfing of the Web. His implications are that we are moving toward a virtual world-- with virtual selves. He cites The Matrix as being an example of an alternative future for mankind-- a kind of "homework lesson" for what might be the shape of things to come.
So, the notion of "neuromarketing" doesn't seem so fantastic to me-- it just shows how brazen some corporations are that they would contemplate using it. As for the images that we have been exposed to in our media viewing, it rots away our humanity-- real life becomes not good enough, not fast enough, for the "jacked in" user. Digitopia has me questioning all of the things I am doing, or want to do, with IT. DeGrandpre paints a picture of a human world that is moving toward virtuality, to the exclusion of any kind of social sphere. His view is that we have rotted away the social sphere we had before visual media came along, too. "Neuromarketing" is just part of the package, even though it seems to be more pernicious than regular marketing or any other media content. Contrast this view with The Cluetrain Manifesto, whose authors believed that the Internet was a liberating vehicle for self-expression.
Microsoft didn't "[need] cooperation from outside sources to pull their stunts". They greenmailed and coerced the vendors to install only Windoze on their machines-- this is a finding by the federal courts that is not in dispute. The notion that "the majority of the market wanted MS to be the standard" presumes that the vendors/retailers could make a choice. No choice == monopoly. As for Gateway, they are a bunch of flueless cucks (translate) who won't build anything but a Wintel box. If they offered Linux or something else on their machines, it would likely be up to the vendor of that OS to support it, not Gateway. BTW, forcing vendors to support Windoze must be a pretty good deal for MS-- they don't have to pay for tech support directly. But I think it's a super bad deal for the typical user.
Yes, OJ would be able to testify that Bill Gates, because he extracts monopoly rents from his customers, can in fact afford those Bruno Magli shoes OJ made so famous.:-B
I have recently started to fully use Yahoo to give me a portal to a lot of the stuff from their site. I am preparing to abandon Hotmail and pAssport-- the Hotmail account is full of nothing but spam anymore, and one really can't stop it-- I think you can only have 250 or 500 addresses on your block list. So, I am moving everything that I used my Hotmail account for to Yahoo. There really isn't much of a need otherwise for me to use pAssport-- I used it to access (of course!) a .net user group site, but I have jumped ship on .net, so I won't need it anymore. When you think about it, Yahoo or some other portal/content provider has just as much of an opportunity to create a single sign-on service, instead of a software vendor-- it really has to be driven by the needs of users instead of just what product the vendors have to offer. Where it comes to security and spam prevention, MS just doesn't rate in my eyes.
Obviously, Longhorn is not going to come out as early as 2004-- the PI article is at least fair enough to quote another source who knows better than to believe the MS PR. Since the new OS is not likely to be out for another three years, this is a chance for the open source community to make its case to the public of why it should try its products.
The first case for open source will be, "You don't have to give up your old computer!" We already know that Linux and other OSs can be installed on x86 hardware; it has to be easy to install, and it has to have all the other things that people are accustomed to having on their machines. Finally, it has to have programs that are compatible with common file formats, like MS Office. With OpenOffice, that last need has largely been fulfilled, where it comes to productivity.
What would also be helpful is to pitch open source products to hardware manufacturers, as a way to sell more units. If not to the consumer market, then to the business market. Having Linux pre-installed on machines would make the transition to open source a lot easier for the enterprise. Of course, with Longhorn, the promise for the HW people is that they can sell a lot more units in the future with Longhorn. But, in the meantime, they may be struggling with machines that can only be loaded with warmed over versions of XP.
The other thing that has to happen is that people need to be made aware of what DRM really represents. If you don't like MS having admin rights on your machine (as they do with the latest SPs on Win 2k and XP), you sure as hell won't like DRM-enabling Palladium. It's about freedom, and I think a simple slogan on a T-shirt to get this home could be: "DRM=Total Information Awareness". "Trusted Computing" is just a slogan, when the count on security patches for Windows and related products this year is 65; for open source, it's closer to 10. Which do you think is more "trustworthy"?
The timeframe that's quoted in the PI article is optimistic-- MS probably isn't going to get Longhorn out the door until late '05/'06. In the meantime, there's a window of opportunity for other OS platforms to keep revving, and to appeal to hardware manufacturers to offer a pre-installed version of Linux, like what Wal-Mart is doing for Lindows and Mandrake. MS has given OSS this opportunity to get a bigger foothold in the marketplace. They need to take advantage of it.
I could never understand the appeal of AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, or MSN as "content providers". Much of what they have on their sites is available elsewhere, either anonymously or by registering at another site. Of course, I didn't really get into being online until the 'Net and WWW was available, so I never saw the original private online services. I think this is the first step toward Time Warner using AOL as a delivery channel for digital content. Of course, one will have to pay to use such a service, just like HBO. AOL needs to get on the cluetrain: if it believes that it will make money or endear itself to its customers with this move, they're smoking something. The Internet is for self-expression, not the delivery of Hollywood's trash.