They start feeling a little better about Linux because they've "heard about it". So when a tech decides to download(!) a freely available OS which comes with zero support (and zero culpability should something go wrong) and use it in mission critical applications, the PHBs won't get the screaming willies.
Even better is that techies can now say: "Oh, I'm just trying out that new Red Hat Linux software that just had the IPO the other day", a day or two later: "Hey PHB! Look at all the nifty stuff that this thing can do- do you think we should buy the product so we can get support, or do we want to just run it for free as is? No really- they don't mind if people use it for free, they just charge for support, etc..."
Or maybe one of those coffee commercials: "[we've secretly replaced his NT server with Linux, let's see if he notices]"... pan across techie slowly sipping from a cup...;^)=
Now that there is more visibility to Linux/RH, it becomes a lot less verboten to talk about/play with. It's been my experience that people don't like change, but when confronted with it, they've got to be prepared to jump right in or get left behind.
...the other day. It's written by Don Knuth- you know, the guy who wrote "The Art Of Computer Programming" and TeX. (scroll down a page or two)
You can see his thoughts on the matter, but it boils down to- "Why not use KB for 1000 bytes, and KKB for 1024 bytes?"
It makes sense to me, plus his homepage is kindof neat.;^)=
All in all, I think the new terms suck. I can see why the scientifical types want to have a clear term to use in order to clarify what they're speaking about, but why not then say: "ex-twenty" for two to the twenty exponent, or "ex-forty". If *you're* going to make an international standard that sounds silly, don't make *me* use it. (but maybe that's just the 'merican side of me;^)=
I'd guess the President is feeling pressure from a lot of different groups (current buzzword: recording industry) to do something about all this stuff.
You can complain about the piracy in China, but it's happening on the internet too, and like it or not- some individuals and companies feel affected/threatened by it.
And a "working group" seems like a fairly intelligent way to go about it all too. They're not talking about making new laws, passing new legislation, etc... but simply trying to figure it all out, and how computers and the internet are going to change the way the federal government and federal laws operate.
However, this has the possibility to be a Very Good Thing (but I'm not holding my breath), especially if that group begins to realize the implication of encryption, free speech, digital copyrights, and any other multitude of important issues which have been discussed recently on/.
It could also be a Very Bad Thing if they come to admittedly non-liberal views on those same topics. Something to the effect of putting tracking collars on every packet connected to the 'net. No matter how lofty and noble the goals might be, the loss of privacy and potential for abuse are just too great.
I'm sure others can say it better, but don't get your shorts in a bunch, it might not be all that bad. And with a group like this, perhaps they would be willing to listen to their more informed constituents?
You've got to be really careful about the differences between displaying a font and printing a font- for some applications (like desktop publishing/advertising) designers want to what shows up on the screen to be *EXACTLY* what appears on the printed page.
This doesn't mean "look good" or "anti-aliased", but rather "oh, I hope that the last word of the second sentence in the third paragraph really *does* show up where it is on the screen and not on the next line"
Silly stuff, but hey- if you write source code, you can appreciate the concern if you've ever used "helpful translators.";^)=
It is apparently some bonus feature of their news-interface that highlights the words you searched for. It looks like somebody was searching for "Red Hat" and then mailed this link to Slash.
You can verify this by clicking the: "Jump to first matched term" link at the -very- beginning of the article.
Running the above query says: "12 documents found," but it only shows results 1-10, and doesn't have a link to more results.
Now I don't know exactly how many pages that match this criteria are *actually* out there, but it seems as though you should show all the matches that you count, unless you're padding your counts;^)= (btw, that last claim is completely unsubstantiated, I'm just feeling mean:^)=
It's too bad the article on MS-NBC is very biased- look at all the words loaded with negative conotations:
"Thanks to an unusual design..." Unusual according to who? The author? Computing industry experts? This must be considered biased opinion unless a source is given.
"Sun figures it can sell cheap versions of the chip for use in inexpensive consumer-electronics" Cheap chips, inexpensive electronics? Cheap has strong negative conotations, while inexpensive is generally considered a Good Thing(tm). It's interesting to note that it wasn't "inexpensive versions of the chip for cheap consumer electronics"
"It's still a risky bet, though..." According to who? This persons' stock broker? To be fair, it backs up this statement with examples of past failures, but printing it as a statement of fact is bad form.
"Intel, which has also moved aggressively into communications-related chips, will also pose a competitive threat."...and so will TI, and ~Transmeta~ (?) and all the other companies not aligned with MS, and not mentioned by the reporter. This statement points to Intel in a positive light, but fails to mention competitors. Another example of possible bias.
"Sun officials already audaciously refer to MAJC as "the most important semiconductor architecture of the next 20 years.""...and Microsoft audaciously assumes that every computer sold will have Windows on it. Audacious is a loaded word, and should not be used in a news story, unless someone else is quoted as saying it.
"Analysts are reserving judgment on such claims until Sun formally discloses the details of the architecture on Aug. 16."...but MS-NBC isn't. It's jumping right out of the gate with lots of unsubstantiated claims, and un-sourced opinions.
To be fair, there is some positive stuff in the article too-
MAJC chips should be able to display complex graphics and handle digital-communications tasks at extremely high speeds -- far faster than a general-purpose Intel chip, for instance.
the chip is particularly well-suited, they say, to handling the enormous streams of visual and audio data expected in the multimedia age.
Look at http://technocrat.net/ it's started by Bruce Perens, looks a lot like slashdot, and seems very similar to what you're interested in. It came online a few days ago (if you saw that/. article) and looks like it could use a few people to jump on board and get it started.
A LINKING document might be usable for politeness, stating the terms that one should link up. However, such a document should not carry the force of law. The legal precedents all flow the other way.
I disagree with this statement- as corny as it may sound, the internet is a law and world unto itself. Witness "privacy policies", the GPL, RFC's, and that Canadian "netiquette==no spam" legal ruling.
Each of these is technically (probably)unenforcable and has very little basis in "the real world". However, they are routinely accepted as the way things work.
I haven't found the link to that guy's movie trailer site, but if he's just got
's of.AVI's saying: Austin Powers, Phantom Menace, etc... and doesn't credit the fact that they're not being served off of his server, that's just plain rude and is also known as "bandwidth theft".
If he linked to "www.universalmovies.com/trailers/austinpowers.htm l" then that is giving the (IMHO) proper credit to Universal.
But I also agree with another poster who said: "Corp's don't know how to do anything without their lawyers". This is true. This is unfortunate, but true. None of the PHB's seem to understand that besides the formative years (I'm assuming) of the 'net where standards were enforced by people with guns, all advances have been because of a lasseiz faire (sp?) approach to innovation.
Unfortunately, it seems that corp's say: "Ug. Me see copyright violation. Me pull out Big Lawyer Club(tm)." because they already have those mechanisms in place to deal with this kind of ~intellectual theft~.
But it's all a moot point anyway, because he's advertising their damned movies. They should be paying him. And if they're that concerned about it, check the HTTP_REFERER!;^)=
Microworkz announced Friday that its iToaster, which uses a hybrid of BeOS and Linux for its operating system, will be sold for $19.99 a month for 24 months, including unlimited Internet access, said Microworkz chief executive Rick Latman.
If I recall correctly, reprinting knowingly false information is cause for a libel suit... ahh, here it is...
LIBEL is any false statement (written or broadcast) which tends to 1) Bring a person into public hatred, contempt, or ridicule 2) Cause a person to be shunned or avoided, or... 3) Injure a person in his business or occupation.
CRIMINAL libel: Malicious or wanton publication of defamatory statements or pictures wich tends to disturb the peace and make men rise in anger (riot, sedition) (Truth is *not* a defense for criminal libel.)
Libel PER SE is libel "on the face of" or "by itself." It is actionable *per se* - if brought to court, the burden of proof is on the publisher.
Libel PER QUOD is libel not apparent on its face (circumstances determine libel). Burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not the publisher.
DEFENSES against libel: 1) Truth (justification) 2) Fair comment. 3) Qualified privilege (when covering proceedings where speakers have absolute privelege). 4) Consent (proof of prior permission of plaintiff). 5) Mitigation of damages (retraction, correction, apology, show of "no malice").
(Material based on "Say it Safely, by Paul P. Ashley, University of Washington Press.)
This information was taken from a handout I received in a journalism class. An interesting point about criminal libel is that you can be held liable for libel even if what you are saying is true. Obviously, what Microwerkz is saying is *not* true- has anyone bothered to tell news.com? If news.com knows that their iToaster is not a Be/Linux hybrid, then they could be held liable for making false or misleading statements, I believe.
Slashdot Mirror
Even better is that techies can now say: "Oh, I'm just trying out that new Red Hat Linux software that just had the IPO the other day", a day or two later: "Hey PHB! Look at all the nifty stuff that this thing can do- do you think we should buy the product so we can get support, or do we want to just run it for free as is? No really- they don't mind if people use it for free, they just charge for support, etc..."
Or maybe one of those coffee commercials: "[we've secretly replaced his NT server with Linux, let's see if he notices]" ... pan across techie slowly sipping from a cup... ;^)=
Now that there is more visibility to Linux/RH, it becomes a lot less verboten to talk about/play with. It's been my experience that people don't like change, but when confronted with it, they've got to be prepared to jump right in or get left behind.
Robert (rames@utdallas.edu)
I ran into this...
http://sunburn.stanford.edu/~knuth/new s.html
...the other day. It's written by Don Knuth- you know, the guy who wrote "The Art Of Computer Programming" and TeX. (scroll down a page or two)
You can see his thoughts on the matter, but it boils down to- "Why not use KB for 1000 bytes, and KKB for 1024 bytes?"
It makes sense to me, plus his homepage is kindof neat. ;^)=
All in all, I think the new terms suck. I can see why the scientifical types want to have a clear term to use in order to clarify what they're speaking about, but why not then say: "ex-twenty" for two to the twenty exponent, or "ex-forty". If *you're* going to make an international standard that sounds silly, don't make *me* use it. (but maybe that's just the 'merican side of me ;^)=
--Robert (rames@utdallas.edu)
I'd guess the President is feeling pressure from a lot of different groups (current buzzword: recording industry) to do something about all this stuff.
/.
You can complain about the piracy in China, but it's happening on the internet too, and like it or not- some individuals and companies feel affected/threatened by it.
And a "working group" seems like a fairly intelligent way to go about it all too. They're not talking about making new laws, passing new legislation, etc... but simply trying to figure it all out, and how computers and the internet are going to change the way the federal government and federal laws operate.
However, this has the possibility to be a Very Good Thing (but I'm not holding my breath), especially if that group begins to realize the implication of encryption, free speech, digital copyrights, and any other multitude of important issues which have been discussed recently on
It could also be a Very Bad Thing if they come to admittedly non-liberal views on those same topics. Something to the effect of putting tracking collars on every packet connected to the 'net. No matter how lofty and noble the goals might be, the loss of privacy and potential for abuse are just too great.
I'm sure others can say it better, but don't get your shorts in a bunch, it might not be all that bad. And with a group like this, perhaps they would be willing to listen to their more informed constituents?
$0.02
--Robert (rames@utdallas.edu)
You've got to be really careful about the differences between displaying a font and printing a font- for some applications (like desktop publishing/advertising) designers want to what shows up on the screen to be *EXACTLY* what appears on the printed page.
;^)=
This doesn't mean "look good" or "anti-aliased", but rather "oh, I hope that the last word of the second sentence in the third paragraph really *does* show up where it is on the screen and not on the next line"
Silly stuff, but hey- if you write source code, you can appreciate the concern if you've ever used "helpful translators."
It is apparently some bonus feature of their news-interface that highlights the words you searched for. It looks like somebody was searching for "Red Hat" and then mailed this link to Slash.
You can verify this by clicking the: "Jump to first matched term" link at the -very- beginning of the article.
FYI
http://www.alltheweb.com/cgi-bin/search?type=all&q uery=%22Robert+Ames%22+woodlands+-golf
;^)= (btw, that last claim is completely unsubstantiated, I'm just feeling mean :^)=
Running the above query says: "12 documents found," but it only shows results 1-10, and doesn't have a link to more results.
Now I don't know exactly how many pages that match this criteria are *actually* out there, but it seems as though you should show all the matches that you count, unless you're padding your counts
It's too bad the article on MS-NBC is very biased- look at all the words loaded with negative conotations:
"Thanks to an unusual design..." Unusual according to who? The author? Computing industry experts? This must be considered biased opinion unless a source is given.
"Sun figures it can sell cheap versions of the chip for use in inexpensive consumer-electronics" Cheap chips, inexpensive electronics? Cheap has strong negative conotations, while inexpensive is generally considered a Good Thing(tm). It's interesting to note that it wasn't "inexpensive versions of the chip for cheap consumer electronics"
"It's still a risky bet, though..." According to who? This persons' stock broker? To be fair, it backs up this statement with examples of past failures, but printing it as a statement of fact is bad form.
"Intel, which has also moved aggressively into communications-related chips, will also pose a competitive threat." ...and so will TI, and ~Transmeta~ (?) and all the other companies not aligned with MS, and not mentioned by the reporter. This statement points to Intel in a positive light, but fails to mention competitors. Another example of possible bias.
"Sun officials already audaciously refer to MAJC as "the most important semiconductor architecture of the next 20 years."" ...and Microsoft audaciously assumes that every computer sold will have Windows on it. Audacious is a loaded word, and should not be used in a news story, unless someone else is quoted as saying it.
"Analysts are reserving judgment on such claims until Sun formally discloses the details of the architecture on Aug. 16." ...but MS-NBC isn't. It's jumping right out of the gate with lots of unsubstantiated claims, and un-sourced opinions.
To be fair, there is some positive stuff in the article too-
MAJC chips should be able to display complex graphics and handle digital-communications tasks at extremely high speeds -- far faster than a general-purpose Intel chip, for instance.
the chip is particularly well-suited, they say, to handling the enormous streams of visual and audio data expected in the multimedia age.
Copyright © 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
I'd be particularly alert for bias in articles put out by this company, and would love to know who owns them. ;^)=
(please moderate this up)
/. article) and looks like it could use a few people to jump on board and get it started.
Look at http://technocrat.net/ it's started by Bruce Perens, looks a lot like slashdot, and seems very similar to what you're interested in. It came online a few days ago (if you saw that
I disagree with this statement- as corny as it may sound, the internet is a law and world unto itself. Witness "privacy policies", the GPL, RFC's, and that Canadian "netiquette==no spam" legal ruling.
Each of these is technically (probably)unenforcable and has very little basis in "the real world". However, they are routinely accepted as the way things work.
I haven't found the link to that guy's movie trailer site, but if he's just got
's of .AVI's saying: Austin Powers, Phantom Menace, etc... and doesn't credit the fact that they're not being served off of his server, that's just plain rude and is also known as "bandwidth theft".
If he linked to "www.universalmovies.com/trailers/austinpowers.htm l" then that is giving the (IMHO) proper credit to Universal.
But I also agree with another poster who said: "Corp's don't know how to do anything without their lawyers". This is true. This is unfortunate, but true. None of the PHB's seem to understand that besides the formative years (I'm assuming) of the 'net where standards were enforced by people with guns, all advances have been because of a lasseiz faire (sp?) approach to innovation.
Unfortunately, it seems that corp's say: "Ug. Me see copyright violation. Me pull out Big Lawyer Club(tm)." because they already have those mechanisms in place to deal with this kind of ~intellectual theft~.
But it's all a moot point anyway, because he's advertising their damned movies. They should be paying him. And if they're that concerned about it, check the HTTP_REFERER! ;^)=
If I recall correctly, reprinting knowingly false information is cause for a libel suit... ahh, here it is...
This information was taken from a handout I received in a journalism class. An interesting point about criminal libel is that you can be held liable for libel even if what you are saying is true. Obviously, what Microwerkz is saying is *not* true- has anyone bothered to tell news.com? If news.com knows that their iToaster is not a Be/Linux hybrid, then they could be held liable for making false or misleading statements, I believe.
--Robert (rames@utdallas.edu)