I believe he was referring to the fact that given we have only ever seen one solar system (sample size one) to infer much about other systems from it doesn't really shout simulation with confidence level 99%. Of course, I'm not sure that only data from this observed system was used in the sim (although I do not know what else they could have used). So I'm not sure his base assumption is any more valid than the one he complains about.
It took 10 chapters and 450 pages! Damn I can do it in 4 words: Do NOT do that. Yup, MSSQL a ten's of megabytes application, let's dumb it down and use it manage a few hundred megabytes of compact flash on a handheld or embedded device, yup that's a plan. I guess it's like the man said: when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I guess Microsoft needs a bigger data management toolbox.
----- Why do people think environmentalists would be biased, anyway? What are they biased towards? Not dying? Is there some secret Globex-EnviroCorporation Inc in which all tree hugging hippies have undisclosed shares? Or is it possible that they simply understand the value of erring on the side of caution when the stakes are so high? -----
Yeah, but part of the issue is the zero sum game problem. There's only so much money allocated to ALL environmental issues and while it is not truly a zero sum game it is damn close. So basing allocations of that fixed resource on false assumptions is not REALLY being 'biased toward not dying. In fact it could be said it IS biased toward dying, fix the wrong issue and die from the one you SHOULD have fixed. But that's pretty typical, the usual viewpoint is 'we should fix ALL the environmental issues, we shouldn't have to choose'. For those of us that are environmentally oriented and yet still live in the real world, we realize the problems this type of thing will cause. Less money, less creditability, AND LESS STUFF ACTUALLY FIXED IN TEH LONG RUN (crying wolf again, they argue). Remember the average voter has an IQ of 100 and an attention span measured in picoseconds.
-------------------
"My rather informal test still raises the spectre that a large corporate entity may be clandestinely trying to sway you or your child's political views by censoring content from one side of a political debate. " -------------------
So you're saying that censorware blocked one side and not the other? DUH, what part of CENSORWARE did you miss when you fired it up? Censoring weapons does not NECESSARILY imply censoring ALL text about weapons else you block news sites discussing a murder by gunshot. So obviously you draw a line in the sand somewhere and only block the 'bad' side of the line. Oh yeah, did I mention that line drawing/definition of 'bad' aren't terribly objective operations.
So let's block porn. That means sex right, so let's block all the sites related to birth control too. Oh, yeah and nudity, so let's block the mamagram sites and any reproductive health/anatomy related medical sites.
What everyone wouldn't draw the line there? Someone MIGHT disagree, damn how strange. Gee, MAYBE the guy writing/supplying the DB for the censorware product is using his/her own viewpoint on where the line goes and JUST MAYBE that view is slightly biased, at least from your view (then again, maybe not).
Danger Wil Robinson Danger, using subjective software written by others may not provide the same subjective filtering you want.
DUH!
My god people isn't that the ENTIRE reason that the discussion of censorware vs. freedom of expression has reached the pitch it has. Isn't that one of the main issues with CIPA type laws. Am I the only one who's reality check hasn't bounced?
Did anyone else look at the hardware? A single CPU PII 500, half gig ram, and a single 5400 RPM IDE drive for OS and test data.
Usually a benchmark has a goal, I/O per sec, read or write data throughput, or some set of criteria. Once the criteria are spec'ed then hardware is spec'ed to avoid 'getting in the way'. If I/O throughput is the issue why not SCSI or hardware RAID or some other hardware that would improve the hardware throughput and be representative of what someone in the field might actually use if I/O bottlenecks are a concern. If data bandwidth is an issue use RAID (1 or 5, depending on write or read optimization). If the test is actually testing overall filesystem performance, at least separate OS and data drives and use something faster than a 5400 IDE drive for the data.
What are we benching? Usually a bench is either checking for best performance on a fixed hardware platform (application oriented, my app runs on X, what is my best option to squeeze performance) or best performance period (tweak hardware for each FS and report best config and the performance at that config). Assuming a fixed hardware platform test, I'm confused why this platform. Is this the platform for a Linux DB server?, a POS environment?, a Web server?, a dev machine?, something found left over in a garage?. WTF is the PURPOSE of the bench? Geez, just upgrade to a 1 gig processor and a hardware Raid-5 controller with 4 15K SCSI spindles and choose the FS randomly to get better performance. And NO you CAN'T tell me this result RELIABLY predicts performance on the new platform (slow IDE vs. fast SCSI, non-raid vs. raid-5), at best it is an indicator of what to re-bench in what order.
So I'm back to being confused, why do I care about these numbers?
You stated:...but I could actually set the ports 115.2kb/sec. There were errors, crc checking was needed, but for the most part on the XT end of things my throughput was close to 100kb/sec.
If the 100kbs throughput is true end to end and the 115.2 kpbs is the serial port clock rate then that's about as good as you get. Don't forget that serial transmissions use start and stop bits so a single 8 bit bytes is about 10 bits transmitted. Or about 92Kbps end to end on a 115.2Kbps clocked link, excluding any compression advantages or CRC overhead.
I've ripped many a tab off the standard connector while pulling it through patch panel cable spaghetti. In patch panels snagless connectors are practically a requirement. However, they are not the nicest things to plug into a NIC and then attempt to unplug down behind a desk. Of course, buying both types simply implies the one used will be the incorrect one for the application. You'll still curse the snagless connector under the desk while cursing the tabless connector that fell out of the patch panel.
OK. 16K RAM Trash 80 model I using cassette as main (disk) storage. Wrote a business App in basic back in '79 that was used by a multi-site business to calculate profitability by site and provide input to manager bonuses.
Commerical Library circulation app written in basic in '80 on a CBM 8032 (32K RAM). We did cheat and use a DTL basic compiler to get it to fit.
Lowest memory, original Sinclair, 1K RAM programmed in basic. Used it to play around and write stuff for the kids. Also used it for Z80 asm learning but that is out of scope of this thread.
Also several cash NCR registers were programmed in basic (2950, 215x, and one I forget). I forget the memory size. I used them for programming '80 for accepting credit cards at the gas pump for fleet management software. Kind of an interesting Basic, had async I/O.
Then there was the DEC 10 and DEC 20, oh, yeah and PDPs and...
OK, I admit to not reading ALL the comments but with the current signal to noise...
I have a question, what was the estimated piracy last year? If they reduced the value by 1% and say the 'value' was Ohhhh 1 billion, then they 'saved' 10 million dollars. What did they spend? Is this justification to put them out of business, "Give us 100 Million and We'll save you 10 Million". So what was the ROI of those bankrolling the BSA? -- Just asking...
>In any case, is there really such a thing as a "burglary tool?"
Actually, sort of. I seem to remember that owning a set of lockpicks or an auto 'slim-jim' is NOT illegal (US: most states, YMMV) in and of itself. However, in a given set of circumstances it CAN be a crime. For example, possession of a lockpick while sitting in your house will not get you arrested or charged. However, possession of a lockpick while being arrested for Breaking&Entering will likely get you charged with possession of 'burglary tools'.
Hey you miss the obvious druggie usage. If all transactions are recorded, the drug dealers can check the cash to see if it was issued to law enforcement. If more than say 20% of the cash in a deal has been issued to law enforcement recently, then assume it is a sting and back out or take other action. But of course the drug transaction will be recorded as some trivial sale (or series of sales). No one is going to record the transaction as 'sale of illegal drugs' in the trans log. So drug dealers can attempt to use the system against the cops. Hey maybe this is a law the druggies lobby for and the cops lobby against, interesting twist of fate:-). Oh well, just a thought:-).
I understand. BUT Tripoli, as I understand it, implies I boycott everyone that does not use Tripoli, I.E. I do not talk to people that do not update their mail servers. My point is that people do NOT update their mail servers and cuttng myself off from 90% of the net is not likely to work (I'd like to get the mail my bank, my doctor, my office, send me as ignoring it COULD be bad).
A boycott scheme that does NOT require people to change mailers (RBL type lists) works better as my doctor, bank and office do not have to update to Tripoli and are not likely (I hope) to make it to an RBL list. They make NO changes, I still get mail, I still get to boycott the 'bad guys'. A better more workable solution (IMHO) than forcing people to change mailers.
Problem is open relays and dynamic IPs make the list a rotating door of addresses and it becomes an arms race, spammers use the address before it gets listed, change addresses once it does, and play catch me if you can. This doesn't change with Tripoli, they install Tripoli, you get spam from that address, you block, they change addresses/installs (if you want global mail, you need a default permit on receiving mail from 'new' Tripoli installs). The only win is really open relays, once you list it all gets blocked, gee same as an RBL. Oh, OK instead of JUST changing IP addresses as in the current arms race, they need to reinstall Tripoli somewhere else, possibly under a different name. I'm afraid I do not see much advantage.
Most of the open relays are 'config errors', not intentional (mistakes or easier to 'open world' then 'open what I need'). A spammer is unlikely to open a relay for his competition to use.
The ability to block dynamic IP blocks exist today, most ISPs will not provide the blocking services the dynamic ranges, THIS may be, as you say, 'plausable deniability'. The ISPs claim they 'choose not to restrict their customers' (Yeah, have you READ a cable End User Service Agreement (EUSA) or even a dial-up ISP EUSA).
My comment was, depends on the jackpot size. If the jackpot size is less than the 'cover all bets wager, then the strategy doesn't work. I THINK we believe the same thing (cost benefit counts), I was more trying to clarify the example than contradict the sentiment.
yup, cost benefit still counts. How about you have a 1:56 chance of winning. Oh, the prize is $10, it the original poster still going to plunk down $60 to get an almost sure chance? Doubt it.
LOTS of spam is passed through open relays. Closing Sendmail open relays has been easy for A LONG TIME now. Yet hundreds of open relays still exist. A new protocol is spiffy and all BUT WE CAN'T GET PEOPLE TO USE THE EXISTING TOOLS. A new 'magic bullet' ain't the answer, education is, boycott may be, and use of blacklists can help. Implementation of Tripoli is nice and all but if we can't get people to upgrade to a sendmail/qmail/... with closed relay support how do we get them to upgrade to Tripoli? Figure that out and then use the same method to get the open relay holes closed with the existing tools and save the Tripoli coding time. Hell, spammers that spam from their own address get blacklisted pretty quick, use the blacklist, and close the relays.
(Yeah, I know the blacklists aren't perfect but we can't even get that to work, a new tool isn't likely to work either.)
Bottom line, this is not REALLY a technology issue, it's a LUSER/Business issue. A new technology that penetrates 20-60% of the net still gets spam from the other 40-80% of the net. Tech answers work great IF you get 100% market penetration.
Really the same issue. The current policy is 'chase down the pirates'. I doubt anyone in SENIOR management is reviewing each case. Some low level drone is sending out Cease&Desist letters without changing policy or attempting to discriminate between 'important' and 'trivial' and push it up the food chain. So when the guy at the bottm is doing his job sending out C&D letters the cost of DOS 2 is buried in the Win95/98/2000/Office/... C&D cost and is not seen by management as a cost they can POTENTIALLY save (maybe the policy is 'hard line' ALL pirates to show we are serious). They COULD save that cost by eliminating DOS 2 from the 'C&D letters list' and still not release it PD, if they cared.
One problem with big companies is that policy set at the top is set at big picture level (pirates are costing us sales). Implementation decisions are done at the bottom and that leaves plenty of cracks for things to fall through. Also by chasing ALL instances at the bottom, the low level manager and department head justifies their budget and head count, so sometimes more cases is better:-(.
Yeah, I'm sure for some companies that is true but it is probably not germane to the DOS 2 comment. In any company changing the status quo costs money. Someone has to think about it, talk to some people to ensure they didn't forget something, make the decision, and then implement it. So while releasing the DOS 2 source into the PD may not cost a lot of money, it does cost something to consider it and make the decision. It then costs more to implement the PD decision (find the source, package it, distribute it, support initial questions,...). So the real question is, why should they release it PD? Companies like ROI, especially large market driven companies like M$, so where is the ROI? Hey, they get some PR benefits, but is it really PR bennies in their target market space?
So OK, it costs less than the coffee budget this year, but it still costs and has probably less ROI than the coffee budget (caffeinated programmers are happy productive programmers:-). So why do it? Hey, 'the good of the community' is an Open Source thing, not a corporate thing.
Oh and before the flames start, I'm making a comment on the comment, not a comment about right/wrong or corporate/open source. I was releasing software both PD and 'freeware' (quasi-PD while retaining the copyright) back in the early 80's so be different, zip it and stick to the subject.
Dude, You don't outsource your Admin Assist. or your paralegal, both of which are better than Min wage. You don't need to be a rocket engineer to understand that better computer skills can translate into better information availability in almost every job. It has also been know to help those that actually go out of state to college and have to compete with kids that can actually install software and research data via the net. I think you underestimate exactly where Maine was in the technology food chain.
Actually the point is, not everyone, just the Maine people. Competitive advantage over Mass, NH, VT,...:-).
The point was to INTEGRATE them into the curiculum. No one does long division on paper any more, all schools use calculators (yup that too pisses some people off). It was felt that kids in Maine shouldn't be doing term papers with pencil and paper or on old Royal typewriters, might want to move into 1985+ and use a wordprocessor. Maine being one of the poorer states in the nation found that relying on minimum wage Mom and Dad to buy a computer for Junior wasn't working. 'Plan': seed the system for several years and may be Junior can get a 'real job' and get an understanding of why computer skills are important and MAYBE Junior can both see the need and afford the computer for Junior's Junior.
Hey no plan is perfect and usually Gov't plans aren't even remotely intelligent. However, I give this one credit for long range thinking, something Gov't plans almost ALWAYS lack. Is it going to work? I'd guess it has a somewhat better than average (for a Gov't plan) chance.
OK, Since I was at least vaguely 'in the loop' on this at the time it started...
The issue was a State initiative to increase higher salary high tech jobs in Maine. Diggin potatoes, pickin blueberries, and selling tourists McDogchow and T-shirts are basically minimum wage jobs. Data entry, programming, WP, and the like are usually more than Min wage. In a review of WHY Maine wasn't attracting more high tech the result was: little infrastructure and unskilled workforce.
Result, a 'bold' plan to increase workforce skill level over the long haul by integrating computer skills in the standard school curiculum and hopefully haul some fiber into the state, at least the southern part to start.
Running one off worker retraining was seen as too short sighted, the school plan ensured a 'steady stream' of skilled workers. The fiber issue was thought to eventually resolve itself but a one time kick in the pants to start it rolling was considered.
Unfortunately, I was 'out of the loop' by the time this thing actually started forward so I have no clue on the actual implementation, or where the initial discussions actually wound up.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe it stated undergrad at Yale, MBA at Harvard. Maybe you're both right ... :-)
I believe he was referring to the fact that given we have only ever seen one solar system (sample size one) to infer much about other systems from it doesn't really shout simulation with confidence level 99%. Of course, I'm not sure that only data from this observed system was used in the sim (although I do not know what else they could have used). So I'm not sure his base assumption is any more valid than the one he complains about.
It took 10 chapters and 450 pages! Damn I can do it in 4 words: Do NOT do that. Yup, MSSQL a ten's of megabytes application, let's dumb it down and use it manage a few hundred megabytes of compact flash on a handheld or embedded device, yup that's a plan. I guess it's like the man said: when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I guess Microsoft needs a bigger data management toolbox.
How about NASDAQ, or any of the exchanges, strikes me they would rank somewhere in the OLTP section. OH wait, it's UNIX and MS, not mainframes ...
It seems the moderators are able to cut and paste!
Are you?
-----
Why do people think environmentalists would be biased, anyway? What are they biased towards? Not dying? Is there some secret Globex-EnviroCorporation Inc in which all tree hugging hippies have undisclosed shares? Or is it possible that they simply understand the value of erring on the side of caution when the stakes are so high?
-----
Yeah, but part of the issue is the zero sum game problem. There's only so much money allocated to ALL environmental issues and while it is not truly a zero sum game it is damn close. So basing allocations of that fixed resource on false assumptions is not REALLY being 'biased toward not dying. In fact it could be said it IS biased toward dying, fix the wrong issue and die from the one you SHOULD have fixed. But that's pretty typical, the usual viewpoint is 'we should fix ALL the environmental issues, we shouldn't have to choose'. For those of us that are environmentally oriented and yet still live in the real world, we realize the problems this type of thing will cause. Less money, less creditability, AND LESS STUFF ACTUALLY FIXED IN TEH LONG RUN (crying wolf again, they argue). Remember the average voter has an IQ of 100 and an attention span measured in picoseconds.
-------------------
"My rather informal test still raises the spectre that a large corporate entity may be clandestinely trying to sway you or your child's political views by censoring content from one side of a political debate. "
-------------------
So you're saying that censorware blocked one side and not the other? DUH, what part of CENSORWARE did you miss when you fired it up? Censoring weapons does not NECESSARILY imply censoring ALL text about weapons else you block news sites discussing a murder by gunshot. So obviously you draw a line in the sand somewhere and only block the 'bad' side of the line. Oh yeah, did I mention that line drawing/definition of 'bad' aren't terribly objective operations.
So let's block porn. That means sex right, so let's block all the sites related to birth control too. Oh, yeah and nudity, so let's block the mamagram sites and any reproductive health/anatomy related medical sites.
What everyone wouldn't draw the line there? Someone MIGHT disagree, damn how strange. Gee, MAYBE the guy writing/supplying the DB for the censorware product is using his/her own viewpoint on where the line goes and JUST MAYBE that view is slightly biased, at least from your view (then again, maybe not).
Danger Wil Robinson Danger, using subjective software written by others may not provide the same subjective filtering you want.
DUH!
My god people isn't that the ENTIRE reason that the discussion of censorware vs. freedom of expression has reached the pitch it has. Isn't that one of the main issues with CIPA type laws. Am I the only one who's reality check hasn't bounced?
Did anyone else look at the hardware? A single CPU PII 500, half gig ram, and a single 5400 RPM IDE drive for OS and test data.
Usually a benchmark has a goal, I/O per sec, read or write data throughput, or some set of criteria. Once the criteria are spec'ed then hardware is spec'ed to avoid 'getting in the way'. If I/O throughput is the issue why not SCSI or hardware RAID or some other hardware that would improve the hardware throughput and be representative of what someone in the field might actually use if I/O bottlenecks are a concern. If data bandwidth is an issue use RAID (1 or 5, depending on write or read optimization). If the test is actually testing overall filesystem performance, at least separate OS and data drives and use something faster than a 5400 IDE drive for the data.
What are we benching? Usually a bench is either checking for best performance on a fixed hardware platform (application oriented, my app runs on X, what is my best option to squeeze performance) or best performance period (tweak hardware for each FS and report best config and the performance at that config). Assuming a fixed hardware platform test, I'm confused why this platform. Is this the platform for a Linux DB server?, a POS environment?, a Web server?, a dev machine?, something found left over in a garage?. WTF is the PURPOSE of the bench? Geez, just upgrade to a 1 gig processor and a hardware Raid-5 controller with 4 15K SCSI spindles and choose the FS randomly to get better performance. And NO you CAN'T tell me this result RELIABLY predicts performance on the new platform (slow IDE vs. fast SCSI, non-raid vs. raid-5), at best it is an indicator of what to re-bench in what order.
So I'm back to being confused, why do I care about these numbers?
You stated: ...but I could actually set the ports 115.2kb/sec. There were errors, crc checking was needed, but for the most part on the XT end of things my throughput was close to 100kb/sec.
If the 100kbs throughput is true end to end and the 115.2 kpbs is the serial port clock rate then that's about as good as you get. Don't forget that serial transmissions use start and stop bits so a single 8 bit bytes is about 10 bits transmitted. Or about 92Kbps end to end on a 115.2Kbps clocked link, excluding any compression advantages or CRC overhead.
I've ripped many a tab off the standard connector while pulling it through patch panel cable spaghetti. In patch panels snagless connectors are practically a requirement. However, they are not the nicest things to plug into a NIC and then attempt to unplug down behind a desk. Of course, buying both types simply implies the one used will be the incorrect one for the application. You'll still curse the snagless connector under the desk while cursing the tabless connector that fell out of the patch panel.
OK. 16K RAM Trash 80 model I using cassette as main (disk) storage. Wrote a business App in basic back in '79 that was used by a multi-site business to calculate profitability by site and provide input to manager bonuses.
...
Commerical Library circulation app written in basic in '80 on a CBM 8032 (32K RAM). We did cheat and use a DTL basic compiler to get it to fit.
Lowest memory, original Sinclair, 1K RAM programmed in basic. Used it to play around and write stuff for the kids. Also used it for Z80 asm learning but that is out of scope of this thread.
Also several cash NCR registers were programmed in basic (2950, 215x, and one I forget). I forget the memory size. I used them for programming '80 for accepting credit cards at the gas pump for fleet management software. Kind of an interesting Basic, had async I/O.
Then there was the DEC 10 and DEC 20, oh, yeah and PDPs and
OK, I admit to not reading ALL the comments but with the current signal to noise ...
...
I have a question, what was the estimated piracy last year? If they reduced the value by 1% and say the 'value' was Ohhhh 1 billion, then they 'saved' 10 million dollars. What did they spend? Is this justification to put them out of business, "Give us 100 Million and We'll save you 10 Million". So what was the ROI of those bankrolling the BSA? -- Just asking
>In any case, is there really such a thing as a "burglary tool?"
Actually, sort of. I seem to remember that owning a set of lockpicks or an auto 'slim-jim' is NOT illegal (US: most states, YMMV) in and of itself. However, in a given set of circumstances it CAN be a crime. For example, possession of a lockpick while sitting in your house will not get you arrested or charged. However, possession of a lockpick while being arrested for Breaking&Entering will likely get you charged with possession of 'burglary tools'.
Does the word HACK/CRACK means anything to you?
Hey you miss the obvious druggie usage. If all transactions are recorded, the drug dealers can check the cash to see if it was issued to law enforcement. If more than say 20% of the cash in a deal has been issued to law enforcement recently, then assume it is a sting and back out or take other action. But of course the drug transaction will be recorded as some trivial sale (or series of sales). No one is going to record the transaction as 'sale of illegal drugs' in the trans log. So drug dealers can attempt to use the system against the cops. Hey maybe this is a law the druggies lobby for and the cops lobby against, interesting twist of fate :-). Oh well, just a thought :-).
I understand. BUT Tripoli, as I understand it, implies I boycott everyone that does not use Tripoli, I.E. I do not talk to people that do not update their mail servers. My point is that people do NOT update their mail servers and cuttng myself off from 90% of the net is not likely to work (I'd like to get the mail my bank, my doctor, my office, send me as ignoring it COULD be bad).
A boycott scheme that does NOT require people to change mailers (RBL type lists) works better as my doctor, bank and office do not have to update to Tripoli and are not likely (I hope) to make it to an RBL list. They make NO changes, I still get mail, I still get to boycott the 'bad guys'. A better more workable solution (IMHO) than forcing people to change mailers.
Problem is open relays and dynamic IPs make the list a rotating door of addresses and it becomes an arms race, spammers use the address before it gets listed, change addresses once it does, and play catch me if you can. This doesn't change with Tripoli, they install Tripoli, you get spam from that address, you block, they change addresses/installs (if you want global mail, you need a default permit on receiving mail from 'new' Tripoli installs). The only win is really open relays, once you list it all gets blocked, gee same as an RBL. Oh, OK instead of JUST changing IP addresses as in the current arms race, they need to reinstall Tripoli somewhere else, possibly under a different name. I'm afraid I do not see much advantage.
Most of the open relays are 'config errors', not intentional (mistakes or easier to 'open world' then 'open what I need'). A spammer is unlikely to open a relay for his competition to use.
The ability to block dynamic IP blocks exist today, most ISPs will not provide the blocking services the dynamic ranges, THIS may be, as you say, 'plausable deniability'. The ISPs claim they 'choose not to restrict their customers' (Yeah, have you READ a cable End User Service Agreement (EUSA) or even a dial-up ISP EUSA).
My comment was, depends on the jackpot size. If the jackpot size is less than the 'cover all bets wager, then the strategy doesn't work. I THINK we believe the same thing (cost benefit counts), I was more trying to clarify the example than contradict the sentiment.
yup, cost benefit still counts. How about you have a 1:56 chance of winning. Oh, the prize is $10, it the original poster still going to plunk down $60 to get an almost sure chance? Doubt it.
LOTS of spam is passed through open relays. Closing Sendmail open relays has been easy for A LONG TIME now. Yet hundreds of open relays still exist. A new protocol is spiffy and all BUT WE CAN'T GET PEOPLE TO USE THE EXISTING TOOLS. A new 'magic bullet' ain't the answer, education is, boycott may be, and use of blacklists can help. Implementation of Tripoli is nice and all but if we can't get people to upgrade to a sendmail/qmail/... with closed relay support how do we get them to upgrade to Tripoli? Figure that out and then use the same method to get the open relay holes closed with the existing tools and save the Tripoli coding time. Hell, spammers that spam from their own address get blacklisted pretty quick, use the blacklist, and close the relays.
(Yeah, I know the blacklists aren't perfect but we can't even get that to work, a new tool isn't likely to work either.)
Bottom line, this is not REALLY a technology issue, it's a LUSER/Business issue. A new technology that penetrates 20-60% of the net still gets spam from the other 40-80% of the net. Tech answers work great IF you get 100% market penetration.
Really the same issue. The current policy is 'chase down the pirates'. I doubt anyone in SENIOR management is reviewing each case. Some low level drone is sending out Cease&Desist letters without changing policy or attempting to discriminate between 'important' and 'trivial' and push it up the food chain. So when the guy at the bottm is doing his job sending out C&D letters the cost of DOS 2 is buried in the Win95/98/2000/Office/... C&D cost and is not seen by management as a cost they can POTENTIALLY save (maybe the policy is 'hard line' ALL pirates to show we are serious). They COULD save that cost by eliminating DOS 2 from the 'C&D letters list' and still not release it PD, if they cared.
:-(.
One problem with big companies is that policy set at the top is set at big picture level (pirates are costing us sales). Implementation decisions are done at the bottom and that leaves plenty of cracks for things to fall through. Also by chasing ALL instances at the bottom, the low level manager and department head justifies their budget and head count, so sometimes more cases is better
Yeah, I'm sure for some companies that is true but it is probably not germane to the DOS 2 comment. In any company changing the status quo costs money. Someone has to think about it, talk to some people to ensure they didn't forget something, make the decision, and then implement it. So while releasing the DOS 2 source into the PD may not cost a lot of money, it does cost something to consider it and make the decision. It then costs more to implement the PD decision (find the source, package it, distribute it, support initial questions, ...). So the real question is, why should they release it PD? Companies like ROI, especially large market driven companies like M$, so where is the ROI? Hey, they get some PR benefits, but is it really PR bennies in their target market space?
So OK, it costs less than the coffee budget this year, but it still costs and has probably less ROI than the coffee budget (caffeinated programmers are happy productive programmers:-). So why do it? Hey, 'the good of the community' is an Open Source thing, not a corporate thing.
Oh and before the flames start, I'm making a comment on the comment, not a comment about right/wrong or corporate/open source. I was releasing software both PD and 'freeware' (quasi-PD while retaining the copyright) back in the early 80's so be different, zip it and stick to the subject.
Dude, You don't outsource your Admin Assist. or your paralegal, both of which are better than Min wage. You don't need to be a rocket engineer to understand that better computer skills can translate into better information availability in almost every job. It has also been know to help those that actually go out of state to college and have to compete with kids that can actually install software and research data via the net. I think you underestimate exactly where Maine was in the technology food chain.
Actually the point is, not everyone, just the Maine people. Competitive advantage over Mass, NH, VT, ... :-).
The point was to INTEGRATE them into the curiculum. No one does long division on paper any more, all schools use calculators (yup that too pisses some people off). It was felt that kids in Maine shouldn't be doing term papers with pencil and paper or on old Royal typewriters, might want to move into 1985+ and use a wordprocessor. Maine being one of the poorer states in the nation found that relying on minimum wage Mom and Dad to buy a computer for Junior wasn't working. 'Plan': seed the system for several years and may be Junior can get a 'real job' and get an understanding of why computer skills are important and MAYBE Junior can both see the need and afford the computer for Junior's Junior.
Hey no plan is perfect and usually Gov't plans aren't even remotely intelligent. However, I give this one credit for long range thinking, something Gov't plans almost ALWAYS lack. Is it going to work? I'd guess it has a somewhat better than average (for a Gov't plan) chance.
OK, Since I was at least vaguely 'in the loop' on this at the time it started ...
The issue was a State initiative to increase higher salary high tech jobs in Maine. Diggin potatoes, pickin blueberries, and selling tourists McDogchow and T-shirts are basically minimum wage jobs. Data entry, programming, WP, and the like are usually more than Min wage. In a review of WHY Maine wasn't attracting more high tech the result was: little infrastructure and unskilled workforce.
Result, a 'bold' plan to increase workforce skill level over the long haul by integrating computer skills in the standard school curiculum and hopefully haul some fiber into the state, at least the southern part to start.
Running one off worker retraining was seen as too short sighted, the school plan ensured a 'steady stream' of skilled workers. The fiber issue was thought to eventually resolve itself but a one time kick in the pants to start it rolling was considered.
Unfortunately, I was 'out of the loop' by the time this thing actually started forward so I have no clue on the actual implementation, or where the initial discussions actually wound up.