True. I was refering more to the news media feeling the need to broadcast every detail about a POWs life/career/home/family. That is what I am against. Mostly because it is irrelevant.
They can talk about that fact that someone was taken prisoner, even show the person on TV. This is good, as you point out. But they should leave the family out.
I am all for the truth and everything. But, what is going on with the news of the POWs is their worst nightmare.
Being in the military myself, I can honestly say that I would not like my captors to come back from watching the news and say: "Gee Bill, how is your wife Annie and your daughter Mary? They live in Hoboken, New Jersey, right? Now, why don't you five us the information on your unit's location, and we'll make sure nothing happens to them."
This is why I have instructed all of my family members (wife, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends) that if I am ever captured: NO COMMENT! End of story.
Even though the Iraqi military would have little power to harm their families, it does not make the threat any less real to a captured soldier.
So yes, truth is good. But, please consider the incredible pain that these soldiers and their families are already facing. I'm not saying, "don't report." Simply wait for them to get safely home.
I, for one, am most happy that news outlets respected the Secretary of Defense's wishes. Now, if only the rest of the world's media would be so kind.
I haven't read the bill, but I did check out Representative Lofgren's website. Her points on the issue seem to be quite close to what we have all been clamoring about since the whole DMCA mess got started.
It may not be a perfect solution, but I would certainly point to it as evidence that this is a real problem and that something needs to be done. I already wrote to my Representative asking him to support the measure. I even got a (seemingly) live e-mail response from an intern saying that my comments were forwarded to the congressman.
especially when a great number of people don't think that much of a crime has been committed
Not saying that I defend the congressman's ideas, but it is attitudes like yours that truly cause problems.
Just because "a great" number of people don't see it as a crime doesn't make it legeal OR right. Example: slavery in pre-Civil War America. Espcecially before the abolition movement really got rolling, you were hard pressed to find too many people outraged with the situation (granted that slavery was legal at the time). But was definitely wrong (even by society's standards back then).
Another example: speeding. Everybody says, "no big deal, people hardly get caught." Tell that to the parent/spouse/child of the next person who gets killed by a speeder loosing control and going across the center median.
Granted, if every speeder were caught and penalized it would not eliminate traffic related fatalities. Just like jailing every file trader will not eliminate piracy, but it will go a long way.
The fact that trading copyrighted works is illegal should be enough for people. If you don't like the law, don't break it. Start a reform movement of some sort and change the law, boycott the "bad guys," listen only to music that is released under a libre-type of artistic license, write your eleceted representatives and appointed officials.
Breaking the law is not the only solution, and to dismiss it as somehow being OK becuase nodody really thinks it is wrong is even worse than just breaking the law in the first place.
20 Gb is a huge amount of space, don't fool yourself because of your mp3/pr0n collection
Yeah, unless you are a developer. (I.e., OpenOffice, which is not a big program, requires something like ~2GB of temp space to build). Admittedly, a developer probably has better than average hardware.
There's some Artificial Intelligence: (from the article): "The system will first look for a local version of the component, and will then look in the cache to find an exact match for the strong name of the required component. Failing that, the system will use heuristics to find the next best component".
I highly doubt that there system uses "Artificial Intelligence." The presence of hueristics, does not alone qualify. At best, it is probably a very primitive ruleset that goes looking in several probable locations.
Not only that, but hueristics typically require some sort of pattern matching to take place. If the new FS is supposed to be SQL based, it would be a complete waste of time to hueristically find a.DLL. Since the "next best" component will have a different strong name but likely the same or a similar file name, you can just execute a more efficient query on the database.
But from what the little blurb said, this looks like an excellent way to avoid paying for Windows and all the other bundled software that people don't want or need. Though the cost of parts and installation may offset this just a bit.
I know what you mean. I myself have been looking for how to avoid the MS tax for quite some time.
I think the best place I have found so far is called iDot
They won't sell you a machine with Linux, but you get $95 off the price of any of their machines for opting out of Windows Me (their default choice)
When I get ready to buy my new laptop (when my tax refund finally arrives) I will buy from them. Mainly because of this nifty quote in their FAQ:
Nobody said that you have to buy the OS from us with your new PC...
That is the kind of outfit I prefer to purchase from.
Not the kind (like Dell, Toshiba, IBM, et al) that ram MS down your throat whether you like it or not. Not to say that they sell bad computers. I have had a Toshiba laptop for 2.5 years (I converted to Linux only 6 mos. ago) and am very happy with the performance. But, I refuse to ever buy another computer preloaded with MS anything.
If as many people tried as hard to find security holes in OSX or Linux, there'd be reports for those daily as well.
There are as many people. Only with respect to Linux, they tend to be the developers themselves. Thus, the problems are usually fixed before the official kernel (or whatever other product) is released.
Not only that, but if you fall victim to a security breach in an unstable or development version of a product, you were probably warned. I have yet to see an unstable or development release that did not include something to the effect of: "Don't use this if your data is particularly valuable to you."
It's different with products from companies like Microsoft and Oracle, because we are almost always talking about "stable and complete" products.
Couldn't we move to some sort of system where it's no longer necessary? Or maybe just a very skeletal one to start the boot process.
I believe that is the point of the current setup.
The BIOS kicks things off, does the self test to verify RAM/HDD/video operational status and if there are no errors, turns it all over to the operating system.
I don't see how it could possibly get more skeletal than that.
... switching off Windows will take care of the vast, vast majority of viruses.
In principle I agree with you. This has already been said by many others, but I think it bears repeating:
This effect would have a limited duration. Imagine if every Windows user switched to Linux tomorrow. By the end of the week there would be dozens, if not hundreds, of viruses that affected Linux. Sure, they may be harder to get through the door, but they will appear.
Attacks and viruses are usually targeted for max publicity. I.e., at the product holding 90% market share. If Linux owned 90% of the market, the same would still be true.
Anyone who is even somewhat technically savvy knows that this will happen, even with a very secure OS like Linux or any other *nix variant. Like the "uncrackable" product activation feature in Windows XP showed, where there is a will there is a way.
While the OS itself may be more secure (either because people switch to *nix or because Palladium actually works as advertised), it does not eliminate the weak point--people. The fact still remains that most people do not update their systems as frequently as necessary (particular MS user because of MS's habit of breaking products with updates). This is what leads to the current level of problems with viruses and other such attacks.
In a letter to the State Department, Assistant Secretary of Commerce Nancy Victory said the U.S. should endorse the effort but work to ensure that users' privacy and security will be protected and innovation and competition would be encouraged.
"The time has come for the United States to be more active on this issue," Victory wrote. "We must ensure that ENUM can be implemented in a pro-consumer, secure and competitive manner."
That DoC can have it both ways? Security means encryption. Encryption will either scare off competitors (afriad of the legal wrangels with the DMCA now) or prompt the big comapnies to beat any small competitors over the head with the DMCA. Nevermind that the DMCA may not even apply in some situations (that hasn't stopped the big comapnies up until now).
It seems that this initiative can have competition OR security, but not both, given the current legal climate surrounding anything even remotely considered "secure."
Is therefore safe to assume the Pentagon feels entitled to surveil the rest of the worlds population on the off chance they may spot a terrorist at some point ? I'm not trying to flame here but the article seemed a little short on fact and I am unclear as to the levels of surveillance the bill supports in its current form. If I understand it the overall plan has not actually been killed, just subjected to more congressional oversight and currently exempts American Citizens
That is correct. The DOD is tasked with foreign intelligence collection (authorized under the U.S. Code, but I don't remember the section). They are specifically prohibited from collecting any intelligence ON or ABOUT any U.S. Citizen, resident, or corporation/business by the 4th Amendment, another part of the U.S. Code (don't remember which) and DOD Regulation 5240.1R
Each branch of the military also has its own regulations that take into account specific situations pertinent to that particular branch
To collect any intel on or about a U.S. citizen, resident, or business, the collecting activity requires a waiver from the Attorney General, which is not easy to come by. Of course they could always collect first and ask for permission later, but unless they can prove that collecting that intelligence on that person helped avert a major disaster (like an assasination or destruction of a military base) then you are in very deep s#@!.
Thus, the DOD would need legislative backing to legally collect intelligence on U.S. citizens. This looks like it could be winner on that.
Clear Channel has joind a lawsuit today that the RIAA brought against Clear Channel under the DMCA. Clear Channel is cited for attempting to circumvent the new high-tech encryption scheme known only as "Frequency Modulation (FM)." Clear Channel announced that they felt is in their "own best interest to make an example and show the public that they take this matter very seriously." Frequency Modulation is specifically designed so that only authorized receivers with DRM software can decode and process the signal, thus preventing illegal recording and re-broadcast.
I have to say that I still think it is good news. Even if the adoption of Linux were "too widespread," as you put it, there would be dozens (if not hundreds) of companies cropping up to offer services, improvements and what-have-you. With people willing to pay if they see it as value-added (like paying RedHat for priority access to their servers, for example).
If anything, this will serve to generate competition where the best products survive. As you point out, we are currently under an OS monopoly, but this would occur under Linux only if every major gov't and corporate entity that adopted chose a distro from the same company (highly unlikely).
In the end this is and will remain a good thing because no one company will ever be able to monopolize Linux. There is too much competition already for that to happen.
If these stupid business models gain legal protection, how long until something really stupid happens?
I can see it now:
Company XYZ purchases advertising space in a subway terminal. They figure out that most people drive cars. Next step is to sue for a mandate that everyone must use the subway because automobile drivers deliberately evade the company's advertising by utilizing an alternate means of transportation.
Unfortunately that is how patent law works. If you develop a product or process at the same time as someone else (both doing original work), whoever patents it first owns it. No arguments. The person who patents it owns the idea outright and has the right to license it.
This sort of thing has happened before (the telephone comes to mind, but I don't remember Bell's comptetitor). Just because these people created something without copying it from Acacia, doesn't lessen the validity of their claim. Not to say that the patent itself is valid or not, but as long as it is deemed valid their claim holds.
Remeber, ignorance is not a defense (particularly in court).
That is like saying that it would be OK for your local telco to mandate that you use only a phone manufactured by them. They then proceed to enforce this by sending a signal that breaks your phone. If this isn't illegal it will at the very least piss lots of people off.
Websites are very similary in that they can be accessed by the public (unless a login/password is required). It is very unfair to require that people use only one particular browser.
While no one is forcing you to visit an MS website, no one is forcing them to host it either. I don't think this means that they need to go out of their way or even make an effort to test every available browser, but they shouldn't go breaking them. Just like your telco doesn't test every phone by every manufacturer to ensure it functions on their network (but then again other industries actually make a reasonable attempt to follow their set standards).
I think another very pertinent example is printer setup.
I managed to convince my father to switch from WinMe to RedHat 8.0. That was real easy, pop in CD, choose options, add printer (HP 610CL), use internet connection wizard, point Mozilla mail it his mail server, and viola! Everything is point and click and ready to go, and he's sold on how easy it is to use Linux.
On my computer at home I run Debian, and the printer setup has been an absolute nightmare. I've basically tried everything (pdq, printtool, foomatic, lpd, cups, etc.) and followed every howto (Printing-HOWTO, linuxprinting.org, and several others), all to no avail. I still get only postscript instructions out as ASCII. The dependency/confilct problems between the various components isn't real helpful either.
The average user would not stand for this sort of behavior from an OS (never mind spending a week reading howtos, downloading.ppd,.pdq, and.foo files, manually editing/etc/printcap, and you get the idea). He would have simply switched right back to window$ without a second thought. People want the point-and-click behavior that has come to be expected from Windows and the more polished Linux distros (like RedHat). Although, even RedHat isn't always that easy, particularly if you have exotic hardware.
To continue the printer example, under window$ people don't care about a spooler/filter/blahblah combination. They just want to click once, install the printer (maybe pop in a CD or download a driver if it is new hardware without a driver on the window$ CD) and point the wizard at it without worrying about the command line options for the print spooler.
"Features" like this are what continue to keep Linux from hitting the desktop in any measurable amount.
Isn't this exactly what the Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX) is all about?
Re:Why not just use cell towers for radar?
on
DOD vs. 802.11b
·
· Score: 1
Part of the problem is that using cell towers for radar is very tricky. It requires precise mapping of the "normal" signal spectrum. Then, to actually "track" track the stealth, you would need to measure the (very small) disturbances in the signal.
The only reason it is reasonably effective is because cell towers happen to emit a lot of RF at a frequency that RADAR does not normally operate. Thus, the stealth design was never tested at those frequencies.
If someone within the government or the military goes to the press and leaks a CLASSIFIED report which is then published, the press is fulfilling its civic duty to keep the people informed. Now, leaks of this nature are covered under the US code (18 USC 793, 798 and probably a few others) governing classified information. Does the government threaten legal action against the newspaper or magazine that publishes the info? No! They are protected by freedom of the press. The government's only recourse is to prosecute the military member or government employee that was the source of the leak.
Similarly, in the corporate world, if some leaks confidential company information to the press, publication of that information does not make the newspaper or magazine legally liable. Again, the publisher is fulfilling a civic duty to inform the public. If a newspaper published a report stating that an automaker refused to intiate a recall even after it baame apparent that a recall was warranted, the comapny's only recourse is to find out who the offending employee was and deal with that person (or possibly to accuse the publisher of libel, which is quite serious). Again, there is no talk of taking legal action against the publisher for publishing true information.
So, why then, do retailers insist on attacking these websites for publishing information that was scheduled for release anyway? The real problem is that someone in the retail organisation "leaked" the info. This could have happened by an employee directly providing the information to an outside organisation, or by the failure of the retailer's IT/Security department to propoerly protect the information and the associated computer systems which housed the information.
The retailers must deal with the problem at the internal source rather than attacking a third party for providing a public service that would otherwise be protected by the US Constitution, were it not for the strong arm tactics of Coprorate America. This sort of self-serving special interest maneuvering should be completely unacceptable to the general public.
Slashdot Mirror
True. I was refering more to the news media feeling the need to broadcast every detail about a POWs life/career/home/family. That is what I am against. Mostly because it is irrelevant.
They can talk about that fact that someone was taken prisoner, even show the person on TV. This is good, as you point out. But they should leave the family out.
I am all for the truth and everything. But, what is going on with the news of the POWs is their worst nightmare.
Being in the military myself, I can honestly say that I would not like my captors to come back from watching the news and say: "Gee Bill, how is your wife Annie and your daughter Mary? They live in Hoboken, New Jersey, right? Now, why don't you five us the information on your unit's location, and we'll make sure nothing happens to them."
This is why I have instructed all of my family members (wife, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends) that if I am ever captured: NO COMMENT! End of story.
Even though the Iraqi military would have little power to harm their families, it does not make the threat any less real to a captured soldier.
So yes, truth is good. But, please consider the incredible pain that these soldiers and their families are already facing. I'm not saying, "don't report." Simply wait for them to get safely home.
I, for one, am most happy that news outlets respected the Secretary of Defense's wishes. Now, if only the rest of the world's media would be so kind.
I can't believe they would even consider pulling a stunt like that.
Sadly, many people would believe it, if for no other reason than total ignorance.
This /. thread from two weeks ago comes to mind:
Lofgren Introduces BALANCE Act to Modify DMCA
I haven't read the bill, but I did check out Representative Lofgren's website. Her points on the issue seem to be quite close to what we have all been clamoring about since the whole DMCA mess got started.
It may not be a perfect solution, but I would certainly point to it as evidence that this is a real problem and that something needs to be done. I already wrote to my Representative asking him to support the measure. I even got a (seemingly) live e-mail response from an intern saying that my comments were forwarded to the congressman.
especially when a great number of people don't think that much of a crime has been committed
Not saying that I defend the congressman's ideas, but it is attitudes like yours that truly cause problems.
Just because "a great" number of people don't see it as a crime doesn't make it legeal OR right. Example: slavery in pre-Civil War America. Espcecially before the abolition movement really got rolling, you were hard pressed to find too many people outraged with the situation (granted that slavery was legal at the time). But was definitely wrong (even by society's standards back then).
Another example: speeding. Everybody says, "no big deal, people hardly get caught." Tell that to the parent/spouse/child of the next person who gets killed by a speeder loosing control and going across the center median.
Granted, if every speeder were caught and penalized it would not eliminate traffic related fatalities. Just like jailing every file trader will not eliminate piracy, but it will go a long way.
The fact that trading copyrighted works is illegal should be enough for people. If you don't like the law, don't break it. Start a reform movement of some sort and change the law, boycott the "bad guys," listen only to music that is released under a libre-type of artistic license, write your eleceted representatives and appointed officials.
Breaking the law is not the only solution, and to dismiss it as somehow being OK becuase nodody really thinks it is wrong is even worse than just breaking the law in the first place.
20 Gb is a huge amount of space, don't fool yourself because of your mp3/pr0n collection
Yeah, unless you are a developer. (I.e., OpenOffice, which is not a big program, requires something like ~2GB of temp space to build). Admittedly, a developer probably has better than average hardware.
There's some Artificial Intelligence: (from the article): "The system will first look for a local version of the component, and will then look in the cache to find an exact match for the strong name of the required component. Failing that, the system will use heuristics to find the next best component".
I highly doubt that there system uses "Artificial Intelligence." The presence of hueristics, does not alone qualify. At best, it is probably a very primitive ruleset that goes looking in several probable locations.
Not only that, but hueristics typically require some sort of pattern matching to take place. If the new FS is supposed to be SQL based, it would be a complete waste of time to hueristically find a .DLL. Since the "next best" component will have a different strong name but likely the same or a similar file name, you can just execute a more efficient query on the database.
My advice is this: don't go.
His email is @usafa.af.mil. That would be the U.S. Air Force Academy.
I don't think he has much choice on this one.
But from what the little blurb said, this looks like an excellent way to avoid paying for Windows and all the other bundled software that people don't want or need. Though the cost of parts and installation may offset this just a bit.
I know what you mean. I myself have been looking for how to avoid the MS tax for quite some time.
I think the best place I have found so far is called iDot
They won't sell you a machine with Linux, but you get $95 off the price of any of their machines for opting out of Windows Me (their default choice)
When I get ready to buy my new laptop (when my tax refund finally arrives) I will buy from them. Mainly because of this nifty quote in their FAQ:
Nobody said that you have to buy the OS from us with your new PC...
That is the kind of outfit I prefer to purchase from.
Not the kind (like Dell, Toshiba, IBM, et al) that ram MS down your throat whether you like it or not. Not to say that they sell bad computers. I have had a Toshiba laptop for 2.5 years (I converted to Linux only 6 mos. ago) and am very happy with the performance. But, I refuse to ever buy another computer preloaded with MS anything.
If as many people tried as hard to find security holes in OSX or Linux, there'd be reports for those daily as well.
There are as many people. Only with respect to Linux, they tend to be the developers themselves. Thus, the problems are usually fixed before the official kernel (or whatever other product) is released.
Not only that, but if you fall victim to a security breach in an unstable or development version of a product, you were probably warned. I have yet to see an unstable or development release that did not include something to the effect of: "Don't use this if your data is particularly valuable to you."
It's different with products from companies like Microsoft and Oracle, because we are almost always talking about "stable and complete" products.
Couldn't we move to some sort of system where it's no longer necessary? Or maybe just a very skeletal one to start the boot process.
I believe that is the point of the current setup.
The BIOS kicks things off, does the self test to verify RAM/HDD/video operational status and if there are no errors, turns it all over to the operating system.
I don't see how it could possibly get more skeletal than that.
In principle I agree with you. This has already been said by many others, but I think it bears repeating:
This effect would have a limited duration. Imagine if every Windows user switched to Linux tomorrow. By the end of the week there would be dozens, if not hundreds, of viruses that affected Linux. Sure, they may be harder to get through the door, but they will appear.
Attacks and viruses are usually targeted for max publicity. I.e., at the product holding 90% market share. If Linux owned 90% of the market, the same would still be true.
Anyone who is even somewhat technically savvy knows that this will happen, even with a very secure OS like Linux or any other *nix variant. Like the "uncrackable" product activation feature in Windows XP showed, where there is a will there is a way.
While the OS itself may be more secure (either because people switch to *nix or because Palladium actually works as advertised), it does not eliminate the weak point--people. The fact still remains that most people do not update their systems as frequently as necessary (particular MS user because of MS's habit of breaking products with updates). This is what leads to the current level of problems with viruses and other such attacks.
Well, you are stealing their shit.
In Soviet Russia ... Their shit steals you.
given this:
In a letter to the State Department, Assistant Secretary of Commerce Nancy Victory said the U.S. should endorse the effort but work to ensure that users' privacy and security will be protected and innovation and competition would be encouraged.
"The time has come for the United States to be more active on this issue," Victory wrote. "We must ensure that ENUM can be implemented in a pro-consumer, secure and competitive manner."
That DoC can have it both ways? Security means encryption. Encryption will either scare off competitors (afriad of the legal wrangels with the DMCA now) or prompt the big comapnies to beat any small competitors over the head with the DMCA. Nevermind that the DMCA may not even apply in some situations (that hasn't stopped the big comapnies up until now).
It seems that this initiative can have competition OR security, but not both, given the current legal climate surrounding anything even remotely considered "secure."
Is therefore safe to assume the Pentagon feels entitled to surveil the rest of the worlds population on the off chance they may spot a terrorist at some point ? I'm not trying to flame here but the article seemed a little short on fact and I am unclear as to the levels of surveillance the bill supports in its current form. If I understand it the overall plan has not actually been killed, just subjected to more congressional oversight and currently exempts American Citizens
That is correct. The DOD is tasked with foreign intelligence collection (authorized under the U.S. Code, but I don't remember the section). They are specifically prohibited from collecting any intelligence ON or ABOUT any U.S. Citizen, resident, or corporation/business by the 4th Amendment, another part of the U.S. Code (don't remember which) and DOD Regulation 5240.1R
Each branch of the military also has its own regulations that take into account specific situations pertinent to that particular branch
To collect any intel on or about a U.S. citizen, resident, or business, the collecting activity requires a waiver from the Attorney General, which is not easy to come by. Of course they could always collect first and ask for permission later, but unless they can prove that collecting that intelligence on that person helped avert a major disaster (like an assasination or destruction of a military base) then you are in very deep s#@!.
Thus, the DOD would need legislative backing to legally collect intelligence on U.S. citizens. This looks like it could be winner on that.
Clear Channel has joind a lawsuit today that the RIAA brought against Clear Channel under the DMCA. Clear Channel is cited for attempting to circumvent the new high-tech encryption scheme known only as "Frequency Modulation (FM)." Clear Channel announced that they felt is in their "own best interest to make an example and show the public that they take this matter very seriously." Frequency Modulation is specifically designed so that only authorized receivers with DRM software can decode and process the signal, thus preventing illegal recording and re-broadcast.
I have to say that I still think it is good news. Even if the adoption of Linux were "too widespread," as you put it, there would be dozens (if not hundreds) of companies cropping up to offer services, improvements and what-have-you. With people willing to pay if they see it as value-added (like paying RedHat for priority access to their servers, for example).
If anything, this will serve to generate competition where the best products survive. As you point out, we are currently under an OS monopoly, but this would occur under Linux only if every major gov't and corporate entity that adopted chose a distro from the same company (highly unlikely).
In the end this is and will remain a good thing because no one company will ever be able to monopolize Linux. There is too much competition already for that to happen.
If these stupid business models gain legal protection, how long until something really stupid happens?
I can see it now:
Company XYZ purchases advertising space in a subway terminal. They figure out that most people drive cars. Next step is to sue for a mandate that everyone must use the subway because automobile drivers deliberately evade the company's advertising by utilizing an alternate means of transportation.
Sheesh!
Unfortunately that is how patent law works. If you develop a product or process at the same time as someone else (both doing original work), whoever patents it first owns it. No arguments. The person who patents it owns the idea outright and has the right to license it.
This sort of thing has happened before (the telephone comes to mind, but I don't remember Bell's comptetitor). Just because these people created something without copying it from Acacia, doesn't lessen the validity of their claim. Not to say that the patent itself is valid or not, but as long as it is deemed valid their claim holds.
Remeber, ignorance is not a defense (particularly in court).
That is like saying that it would be OK for your local telco to mandate that you use only a phone manufactured by them. They then proceed to enforce this by sending a signal that breaks your phone. If this isn't illegal it will at the very least piss lots of people off.
Websites are very similary in that they can be accessed by the public (unless a login/password is required). It is very unfair to require that people use only one particular browser.
While no one is forcing you to visit an MS website, no one is forcing them to host it either. I don't think this means that they need to go out of their way or even make an effort to test every available browser, but they shouldn't go breaking them. Just like your telco doesn't test every phone by every manufacturer to ensure it functions on their network (but then again other industries actually make a reasonable attempt to follow their set standards).
I think another very pertinent example is printer setup.
.ppd, .pdq, and .foo files, manually editing /etc/printcap, and you get the idea). He would have simply switched right back to window$ without a second thought. People want the point-and-click behavior that has come to be expected from Windows and the more polished Linux distros (like RedHat). Although, even RedHat isn't always that easy, particularly if you have exotic hardware.
I managed to convince my father to switch from WinMe to RedHat 8.0. That was real easy, pop in CD, choose options, add printer (HP 610CL), use internet connection wizard, point Mozilla mail it his mail server, and viola! Everything is point and click and ready to go, and he's sold on how easy it is to use Linux.
On my computer at home I run Debian, and the printer setup has been an absolute nightmare. I've basically tried everything (pdq, printtool, foomatic, lpd, cups, etc.) and followed every howto (Printing-HOWTO, linuxprinting.org, and several others), all to no avail. I still get only postscript instructions out as ASCII. The dependency/confilct problems between the various components isn't real helpful either.
The average user would not stand for this sort of behavior from an OS (never mind spending a week reading howtos, downloading
To continue the printer example, under window$ people don't care about a spooler/filter/blahblah combination. They just want to click once, install the printer (maybe pop in a CD or download a driver if it is new hardware without a driver on the window$ CD) and point the wizard at it without worrying about the command line options for the print spooler.
"Features" like this are what continue to keep Linux from hitting the desktop in any measurable amount.
Isn't this exactly what the Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX) is all about?
Part of the problem is that using cell towers for radar is very tricky. It requires precise mapping of the "normal" signal spectrum. Then, to actually "track" track the stealth, you would need to measure the (very small) disturbances in the signal.
The only reason it is reasonably effective is because cell towers happen to emit a lot of RF at a frequency that RADAR does not normally operate. Thus, the stealth design was never tested at those frequencies.
Just my $.02
What I fail to understand is this:
If someone within the government or the military goes to the press and leaks a CLASSIFIED report which is then published, the press is fulfilling its civic duty to keep the people informed. Now, leaks of this nature are covered under the US code (18 USC 793, 798 and probably a few others) governing classified information. Does the government threaten legal action against the newspaper or magazine that publishes the info? No! They are protected by freedom of the press. The government's only recourse is to prosecute the military member or government employee that was the source of the leak.
Similarly, in the corporate world, if some leaks confidential company information to the press, publication of that information does not make the newspaper or magazine legally liable. Again, the publisher is fulfilling a civic duty to inform the public. If a newspaper published a report stating that an automaker refused to intiate a recall even after it baame apparent that a recall was warranted, the comapny's only recourse is to find out who the offending employee was and deal with that person (or possibly to accuse the publisher of libel, which is quite serious). Again, there is no talk of taking legal action against the publisher for publishing true information.
So, why then, do retailers insist on attacking these websites for publishing information that was scheduled for release anyway? The real problem is that someone in the retail organisation "leaked" the info. This could have happened by an employee directly providing the information to an outside organisation, or by the failure of the retailer's IT/Security department to propoerly protect the information and the associated computer systems which housed the information.
The retailers must deal with the problem at the internal source rather than attacking a third party for providing a public service that would otherwise be protected by the US Constitution, were it not for the strong arm tactics of Coprorate America. This sort of self-serving special interest maneuvering should be completely unacceptable to the general public.
--El Cubano