If you have Cell Phone service you are not even near the boonies yet.
I live in East Tennessee. I can not even get a cell phone connection, the phone company people do not know what DSL is, and the best quote I have for a T1 is over $1500 per month.
So I had no choice but to go Direcway. Of course my job (the only one I could find in 6 months looking) needs a VPN connection. Not to mention the dozens of other ways Direcway does not work like a regular connection.
I am starting to realize I made a mistake moving to a place further behind than most third world countries. (I wish some bible thumping politicians from the area would read this).
Anyhow, quit your bitchin, you got it good if you have cell phone coverage.
You obviously have not been around very long. 20 years ago IBM would gladly sit at the table and argue why proprietary systems were better. Sure, they are singing the 'open source' and 'open standards' line now, but it IS NOT tradition, nor should it be thought of as anything more than a phase they see as the way to make the most money at the moment.
Asking him to evaluate some unique cryptography process and having him give a price for a 'positive' evaluation. That's what he does for a living and yes, this is first hand experience. If he was truly a scientist (that was independently wealthy) he would evaluate and give his opinion without costs. I don't fault him for making a living, but I consider the MO in his writings.
I'd have to agree with that. I've never seen a lock stop someone who wanted to break into a house. I mean for god sakes, you have glass windows don't you?
Again, that uber hard steel deadbolt 10 feet from a pane of glass is about as stupid as it gets. The weak link sets the level of security.
Not true. I send my credit card through un-encrypted email all the time. People on the receiving end freak out and go into panic. Guess what? Never had a bit of trouble. I hate to say it, but most of the people running around crying 'the secure sky is falling' are clueless (vast majority) or are trying to make money from it (Schneier et al.) Crypto is part of a total solution. And as is always the case, the weakest link determines the overall strength. You can have the best military encryption on the planet, and if you write your password on a sticky note and tack it to the bottom of your keyboard the encryption doesnt do dick. There are far too many weak points on the internet, for someone who knows what is really going on, to get very excited about encryption. How many of the thousands of ID thefts that occurred recently (Bank of America) were originated on a secure (SSL?) link? Answer: probably all of them. See? SSL isn't really all that helpful. Its one of those markets that was created to make money, and the vast majority of the public believe they are buying value. While I generally take everything Scnierer says with a grain of salt (because I know he says what someone pays him to say) I'd have to agree with him on this one. No panic, no chaos, no big deal.
Re:moving past relational model? I thinketh not
on
The Future of Databases
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I doubt if he is "confusing two issues" as he probably knows a lot more about it than you and I. He may indeed have a different opinion, but that is not confusing two issues.
I will admit I was around before relational databases. Back then there was good old hierarchical databases, and they did a damn good job of what a relational database does 50% of the times these days. The problem was the other 50% they couldn't do. So along came relational databases. Now to think that there is nothing beyond relational is like IBM saying no one will ever need more than 16 colors on their PC, shortsighted.
The part I really wish would die is SQL. It was invented as a way end users could enter data queries. It became adapted to be imbedded in COBOL programs, and the fact that it's at the center of most enterprise applications today is hideous. I don't care when the next database technology comes along, but please get rid of the SQL dinosaur.
Personally, I'd just as soon get rid of databases, I have already designed my business logic, why must I now design and code ways to store objects? Yes, I know, some technology is already out (and I use it), but it is not mainstream yet. That is what I would like to see sooner, persistent object oriented databases become mainstream.
What may be even more important and interesting is how many copie were un-installed because firefox failed to render a significant number pages correctly (depending on you definition of correct - me I dont care whose fault it is, it looks right or doesnt, thus I un-installed within 2 days).
It has nothing to do with what the GPL allows. It has to do with what the originator said you could or could not do. The fact that person A gives me more rights than person B doesnt take away person B's right to set his own rules.
"i firmly believe the originator of a program, just like the originator of source code, has every right to say how his material can be used."
"That's quite reasonable. Is it not up top the manufacturer of a piece of electrnics to decide how it should be built?"
Not if it interferes with the program owners intent. Just because you don't like the rules does not make them invalid - that is not civilization, it is anarchy. If you dont like the conditions I place on watching my material, don't watch it. How hard is that to comprehend? Fair use my ass, using that argument sounds like far right gun slinging preacher touting the second admendment, the spirit and purpose of which is being totally ignored. Fair use exists for personal private use. All the people who are claiming fair use are claiming it so they can steal (yes I consider skipping commercials, when the commercials are what the producer depends on to pay for a program, stealing).
Sorry, but I can't agree. What you are saying is the same as 'even though the GPL source is copyrighted, once it is on my computer I should be able to repackage and redistribute it as I see fit, including selling it' And that simply will not fly. The flag exists for a purpose, and defeat of that purpose by any means is wrong. I know I am in disagreement with a lot of you, but i firmly believe the originator of a program, just like the originator of source code, has every right to say how his material can be used.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.
I believe the broadcast flag can certainly fit withint the definition of 'communications', as does any technical makeup of the signal being transmitted or received.
Besides, if radio spectrum was all they were about, we (the US) would see a lot more tits in half time shows!
I just don't see how this crosses the line. Granted I didn't read the stories, so go ahead and flame if I'm off base. But the FCC is tasked with providing technical direction to the broadcast community. If they all wanted this flag, and i think we will agree the broadcasters do, it's the slashdot crowd who does not, then why is the FCC out of line being the standards committee for what they all want? The thing that really gets me is the stupid court stepping in at the last minute and changing plans. Manufacturers have to be planning, designing, implementing and producing for this broadcast flag sometimes years in advance. Then the court steps in, thinks everything is going to change instantly at their whim. The alternative to the the way this happened is that some standards comittee, like whomever dictated the NTSC signal or PAL etc, would get the task, come up with the exact same solution, and then the FCC would be 'in-line' to enforce it. This is not the win you think it is. It's just some stupid judge(s) trying to make a name for themselves.
Your fears are misplaced.
Microsoft only wants to control the API. By following the MS defined API in mono, you are making bill's dream come true. Increased popularity with mono means and increased popularity with a MS API. Remember, Windows didn't sell the best initially, office did. And people bought Windows to run office. Now its the same thing - lot's of good.Net mono apps? great, where is the fastest most reliable place to run them? Contrary to popular./ belief, it isn't linux. Mono is a hugely positive thing for MS.
In case you havent been watching, this executive branch has been ignoring the laws since they came into power. Now that they have a new majority vote (which they didnt have the first 4) They are accelerating their agenda.
The know damn well they wont be back the next term.
Putting in this provision makes the law blatently unconstitutional, and someday, some judge who isnt a bible thumper will have the balls to strike the law down. Until then, just deal with the idiots. We'll have our turn.
No shit? I complain about HTML not having the ability a lot less then I complain about having to write apps in HTML to begin with. But for some stupid reason, everyone thinks the web is the place to write applications. I wonder where they got such a stupid idea?
I've had to resort to all sorts of tricks to avoid postbacks in my current (aspx) development efforts. First we used a thrid party soap-xml RPC like this thing. Then we switched to an IFrame for the postback portion. Then I noticed that MS is including their own new and improved soap-xml RPC thing in.Net 2. Now I read about this. Seems it is a problem a lot of people need/want to solve - but to be honest, I am tired of having so many different solutions to a problem I should not have to begin with. Isn't there something that can be done with the HTML standard to elliminate the need? Life would be so much better down that path.
well the first URL doesn't mention him. The second URL (Wired) article does. Although I would have to say their editted conversation does not sound anything like him.
Re:Good thing the CIA isn't about code breaking
on
Decrypting Kryptos
·
· Score: 1
Actually I believe this monument was in way intended to be a warning/example to NSA that they were not as smart as they think they are. Unfortunately, post retirement, NSA has had (and taken) plenty of oppertunities to 'get back' for that. There is/was a lot of tension between the CIA and NSA - in some cases entire projects exists to create crypto codes the other agency can't break. Your tax dollars at work.
I worked for the man that did the cryptography for a couple of years after his CIA retirement. We had some insteresting conversations about abstract concepts, as well as some border line spook stuff he couldn't give details of but painted a very funny picture none the less. What suprises me is how the 'artist' gets all the attention for this piece, and not the crypto guy. His name is not even mentioned in the posted URL.
semi agreed - since I am a developer I would prefer you emphazise the requirements issue. The PHBs and project managers a lot of the blame, along with some moron developers.
As a developer I would love to make a good successful product, if my employer would let me. But they want it now, they want me to 'do it in a hurry/cheaply but in a way where we dont have to spend much time if we change the design later' - that has become my most hated phrase and I hear it over and over from different clients.
That's almost as bad as the time I told a manager that something "was impossible" and his reply was that "in that case, it would need to be managed closely." How do these people get to be in charge?
Re:Another threat to MS
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 1
You know, I would almost agree with you. Certainly make a small bet you were right, if the idea hadnt already failed so miserably (Oracle/Java et al).
Doesnt mean that someone will not try it again though and succeed in the future.
Probably some combination of what you are saying - thin client - and what I am saying - household/wide automation.
Netscape - they have an internet browser thingy and it's really catching on and will soon put MS out of business.
Oh wait, N/M.
OK, there is this other company called apple pie or something, and they will do it, they will put Microsoft out of business, as soon as they find someone to lend them the money they need to stay in business.
Oh wait, N/M.
Ok, there is this other company called Linux, and they've been around for at least 10 years and they have eaten away at least.00001% of MS business - they're going to do it for sure!
Please. IBM isn't a threat, Linux isn't a threat. The only threat to MS is some company unknown to the vast majority at the moment, which comes up with some new innovative have to have commodity. Newsflash: it isn't a 30 year old Unix command line clone band-aided together in an attempt to emulate a user friendly OS by a bunch of non-accountable non-paid hobbyist. There is no compelling innovation there at all. At best - in a long stretch of imagination - a better way of doing the same old thing. If MS had come out and just did a different version of Mainframe software do you think they would have knocked IBM out of the top position? Nope - they seized on a new innovative platform.
If you haven't noticed, MS is spending considerably more effort getting into the home market than worrying about linux. Hint: the technology that runs your household is a market MS must win. If Linux follows historical patterns, they will be late to the party, as usual.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have Cell Phone service you are not even near the boonies yet.
I live in East Tennessee. I can not even get a cell phone connection, the phone company people do not know what DSL is, and the best quote I have for a T1 is over $1500 per month.
So I had no choice but to go Direcway. Of course my job (the only one I could find in 6 months looking) needs a VPN connection. Not to mention the dozens of other ways Direcway does not work like a regular connection.
I am starting to realize I made a mistake moving to a place further behind than most third world countries. (I wish some bible thumping politicians from the area would read this).
Anyhow, quit your bitchin, you got it good if you have cell phone coverage.
You obviously have not been around very long. 20 years ago IBM would gladly sit at the table and argue why proprietary systems were better. Sure, they are singing the 'open source' and 'open standards' line now, but it IS NOT tradition, nor should it be thought of as anything more than a phase they see as the way to make the most money at the moment.
Asking him to evaluate some unique cryptography process and having him give a price for a 'positive' evaluation. That's what he does for a living and yes, this is first hand experience.
If he was truly a scientist (that was independently wealthy) he would evaluate and give his opinion without costs.
I don't fault him for making a living, but I consider the MO in his writings.
I'd have to agree with that. I've never seen a lock stop someone who wanted to break into a house. I mean for god sakes, you have glass windows don't you?
Again, that uber hard steel deadbolt 10 feet from a pane of glass is about as stupid as it gets. The weak link sets the level of security.
Not true. I send my credit card through un-encrypted email all the time. People on the receiving end freak out and go into panic. Guess what? Never had a bit of trouble.
I hate to say it, but most of the people running around crying 'the secure sky is falling' are clueless (vast majority) or are trying to make money from it (Schneier et al.)
Crypto is part of a total solution. And as is always the case, the weakest link determines the overall strength. You can have the best military encryption on the planet, and if you write your password on a sticky note and tack it to the bottom of your keyboard the encryption doesnt do dick. There are far too many weak points on the internet, for someone who knows what is really going on, to get very excited about encryption.
How many of the thousands of ID thefts that occurred recently (Bank of America) were originated on a secure (SSL?) link? Answer: probably all of them. See? SSL isn't really all that helpful. Its one of those markets that was created to make money, and the vast majority of the public believe they are buying value.
While I generally take everything Scnierer says with a grain of salt (because I know he says what someone pays him to say) I'd have to agree with him on this one. No panic, no chaos, no big deal.
I doubt if he is "confusing two issues" as he probably knows a lot more about it than you and I. He may indeed have a different opinion, but that is not confusing two issues.
I will admit I was around before relational databases. Back then there was good old hierarchical databases, and they did a damn good job of what a relational database does 50% of the times these days. The problem was the other 50% they couldn't do. So along came relational databases. Now to think that there is nothing beyond relational is like IBM saying no one will ever need more than 16 colors on their PC, shortsighted.
The part I really wish would die is SQL. It was invented as a way end users could enter data queries. It became adapted to be imbedded in COBOL programs, and the fact that it's at the center of most enterprise applications today is hideous. I don't care when the next database technology comes along, but please get rid of the SQL dinosaur.
Personally, I'd just as soon get rid of databases, I have already designed my business logic, why must I now design and code ways to store objects? Yes, I know, some technology is already out (and I use it), but it is not mainstream yet. That is what I would like to see sooner, persistent object oriented databases become mainstream.
What may be even more important and interesting is how many copie were un-installed because firefox failed to render a significant number pages correctly (depending on you definition of correct - me I dont care whose fault it is, it looks right or doesnt, thus I un-installed within 2 days).
about a web site that speaks against censorship, and yet is the most aggressive censor I have ever encountered on the net.
It has nothing to do with what the GPL allows. It has to do with what the originator said you could or could not do. The fact that person A gives me more rights than person B doesnt take away person B's right to set his own rules.
"i firmly believe the originator of a program, just like the originator of source code, has every right to say how his material can be used."
"That's quite reasonable. Is it not up top the manufacturer of a piece of electrnics to decide how it should be built?"
Not if it interferes with the program owners intent. Just because you don't like the rules does not make them invalid - that is not civilization, it is anarchy. If you dont like the conditions I place on watching my material, don't watch it. How hard is that to comprehend?
Fair use my ass, using that argument sounds like far right gun slinging preacher touting the second admendment, the spirit and purpose of which is being totally ignored. Fair use exists for personal private use. All the people who are claiming fair use are claiming it so they can steal (yes I consider skipping commercials, when the commercials are what the producer depends on to pay for a program, stealing).
Sorry, but I can't agree. What you are saying is the same as 'even though the GPL source is copyrighted, once it is on my computer I should be able to repackage and redistribute it as I see fit, including selling it' And that simply will not fly. The flag exists for a purpose, and defeat of that purpose by any means is wrong.
I know I am in disagreement with a lot of you, but i firmly believe the originator of a program, just like the originator of source code, has every right to say how his material can be used.
from the FCC web page;
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.
I believe the broadcast flag can certainly fit withint the definition of 'communications', as does any technical makeup of the signal being transmitted or received.
Besides, if radio spectrum was all they were about, we (the US) would see a lot more tits in half time shows!
I forgot about the telepathic broadcasters, sorry.
I just don't see how this crosses the line. Granted I didn't read the stories, so go ahead and flame if I'm off base. But the FCC is tasked with providing technical direction to the broadcast community. If they all wanted this flag, and i think we will agree the broadcasters do, it's the slashdot crowd who does not, then why is the FCC out of line being the standards committee for what they all want?
The thing that really gets me is the stupid court stepping in at the last minute and changing plans. Manufacturers have to be planning, designing, implementing and producing for this broadcast flag sometimes years in advance. Then the court steps in, thinks everything is going to change instantly at their whim.
The alternative to the the way this happened is that some standards comittee, like whomever dictated the NTSC signal or PAL etc, would get the task, come up with the exact same solution, and then the FCC would be 'in-line' to enforce it.
This is not the win you think it is. It's just some stupid judge(s) trying to make a name for themselves.
Your fears are misplaced. .Net mono apps? great, where is the fastest most reliable place to run them? Contrary to popular ./ belief, it isn't linux.
Microsoft only wants to control the API. By following the MS defined API in mono, you are making bill's dream come true. Increased popularity with mono means and increased popularity with a MS API.
Remember, Windows didn't sell the best initially, office did. And people bought Windows to run office. Now its the same thing - lot's of good
Mono is a hugely positive thing for MS.
In case you havent been watching, this executive branch has been ignoring the laws since they came into power. Now that they have a new majority vote (which they didnt have the first 4) They are accelerating their agenda.
The know damn well they wont be back the next term.
Putting in this provision makes the law blatently unconstitutional, and someday, some judge who isnt a bible thumper will have the balls to strike the law down. Until then, just deal with the idiots. We'll have our turn.
No shit? I complain about HTML not having the ability a lot less then I complain about having to write apps in HTML to begin with. But for some stupid reason, everyone thinks the web is the place to write applications. I wonder where they got such a stupid idea?
I've had to resort to all sorts of tricks to avoid postbacks in my current (aspx) development efforts. First we used a thrid party soap-xml RPC like this thing. Then we switched to an IFrame for the postback portion. Then I noticed that MS is including their own new and improved soap-xml RPC thing in .Net 2. Now I read about this.
Seems it is a problem a lot of people need/want to solve - but to be honest, I am tired of having so many different solutions to a problem I should not have to begin with. Isn't there something that can be done with the HTML standard to elliminate the need? Life would be so much better down that path.
well the first URL doesn't mention him. The second URL (Wired) article does. Although I would have to say their editted conversation does not sound anything like him.
Actually I believe this monument was in way intended to be a warning/example to NSA that they were not as smart as they think they are. Unfortunately, post retirement, NSA has had (and taken) plenty of oppertunities to 'get back' for that.
There is/was a lot of tension between the CIA and NSA - in some cases entire projects exists to create crypto codes the other agency can't break. Your tax dollars at work.
I worked for the man that did the cryptography for a couple of years after his CIA retirement. We had some insteresting conversations about abstract concepts, as well as some border line spook stuff he couldn't give details of but painted a very funny picture none the less.
What suprises me is how the 'artist' gets all the attention for this piece, and not the crypto guy. His name is not even mentioned in the posted URL.
semi agreed - since I am a developer I would prefer you emphazise the requirements issue. The PHBs and project managers a lot of the blame, along with some moron developers.
As a developer I would love to make a good successful product, if my employer would let me. But they want it now, they want me to 'do it in a hurry/cheaply but in a way where we dont have to spend much time if we change the design later' - that has become my most hated phrase and I hear it over and over from different clients.
That's almost as bad as the time I told a manager that something "was impossible" and his reply was that "in that case, it would need to be managed closely." How do these people get to be in charge?
You know, I would almost agree with you. Certainly make a small bet you were right, if the idea hadnt already failed so miserably (Oracle/Java et al).
Doesnt mean that someone will not try it again though and succeed in the future.
Probably some combination of what you are saying - thin client - and what I am saying - household/wide automation.
Netscape - they have an internet browser thingy and it's really catching on and will soon put MS out of business. .00001% of MS business - they're going to do it for sure!
Oh wait, N/M.
OK, there is this other company called apple pie or something, and they will do it, they will put Microsoft out of business, as soon as they find someone to lend them the money they need to stay in business.
Oh wait, N/M.
Ok, there is this other company called Linux, and they've been around for at least 10 years and they have eaten away at least
Please. IBM isn't a threat, Linux isn't a threat. The only threat to MS is some company unknown to the vast majority at the moment, which comes up with some new innovative have to have commodity. Newsflash: it isn't a 30 year old Unix command line clone band-aided together in an attempt to emulate a user friendly OS by a bunch of non-accountable non-paid hobbyist. There is no compelling innovation there at all. At best - in a long stretch of imagination - a better way of doing the same old thing. If MS had come out and just did a different version of Mainframe software do you think they would have knocked IBM out of the top position? Nope - they seized on a new innovative platform.
If you haven't noticed, MS is spending considerably more effort getting into the home market than worrying about linux. Hint: the technology that runs your household is a market MS must win. If Linux follows historical patterns, they will be late to the party, as usual.
*cough*Microsoft*bug*cough*
Actually I was trying to be funny, but i suck at it.
But I sure would like to see your suggestion applied to some other topics.
Doesnt anyone remember the hindenburg?