Whitebox systems are used extensively in cloud computing...so the fear that the manufacturers are simply going to stop building systems that form the backbone of the services provided to those billions of cell phone users is ludicrous.
Now are things evolving? Certainly - as systems become more efficient over time, the numbers required drops - this is planned on purpose to make running those data centers cost effective. Which also means that the evolution and development of CPUs and the technologies surrounding will also continue - and as long as there are people willing to pay - there will be manufacturers building them, and people writing software to take advantage of it.
That being said, does that mean you'll be able to go down to your local BestBuy - and pick up a fully integrated/built gaming rig? Maybe not at some point, but you'll certainly be able to find the parts to build your own. With E-Sports going gangbusters - there is still demand for tweaked gaming rigs.
Finally - when all those youngsters get old, they are not going to want to be squinting at a tiny little screen through their bifocals...which may move some of them back towards stand alone systems - perhaps in a bit of a different form, but the idea is the same - and someone will be building those systems for that market.
1. does this include small systems such as Raspberry PI et al?
2. does this consider people building machines from parts?
Personally, I think people who want or need access to more robust workstation systems for gaming, number crunching, etc, will be able to buy or build the systems they need, for the foreseeable furture because:
1. Business runs on white box systems - including the services behind all of those hand held devices at the other end of the network connection.
2. E-Sports is not just about consoles - and we're talking $billions there.
Your average person who could care less will be fine, and so will those of us who work in the field, play video games, or need to be able to number crunch. Will how people doe these things change? Certainly, but maybe for the better in some ways - particularly for people who may need one of those functions infrequently - they don't have to invest in expensive equipment to leverage cloud based resources through their phone. For the geeks remaining - we'll all be fine.
You give people more credit for being 'smart' than they deserve. Mistakes do happen all the time.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
The best option is to develop better technology to detect asteroids farther away (a series of monitoring satellites covering all quadrants overlapping). Once detected other methods than brute force could be applied. I've seen ideas like using solar wind/particles to move it by making one side of the object a black body (to absorb energy - and thus apply a force), to applying force directly by 'docking' with it and using rockets to nudge it off course.
The real problem isn't how to move the asteroid, the real problem is early detection. The earlier we detect it, the less energy has to be applied to it.
This is exactly why many things should not be left to business. Those things need to be handled by society - and for many things that means leveraging tax dollars to do what is right for the minority negatively impacted by policies - such as those driven by the Goldman-Sachs statement - from the majority. The research and development funded through these programs will actually help us all through the development of new technologies, and advancement of fundamental science applications beyond the original target, that would be in the public domain (if you need a reason beyond ethical considerations to do what is right). That, of course is a long term viewpoint which, while most beneficial, is not on the radar of current business economic theory which puts quarterly profit increases as the only measure of success.
A corporation is really a social contract between the owners of the corporation and society that allows that organization to gain benefits above and beyond that of a person (lower tax rates, special legal considerations/access...etc), not only to benefit the owners, but also to benefit society as a whole. With the means of low cost production distributed now in the hands of people given technological advancements in the last few decades (e.g. 3D printing, VR/AR, the Internet etc), and corporations automating both mental and physical tasks via information technology (cloud computing, AI etc) and robotics (the next evolution in harnessing technology to increase human power that started with domestication of animals, through mechanical impacts of the industrial age), the argument that jobs are the primary benefit of corporations to society is growing thin. Beyond profits for the shareholders/owners, what benefits to society do corporations provide?
I think that is the question we should all be asking ourselves as we make decisions about what products to purchase, and what investments to make (e.g. most working people have 401K accounts - and thus are shareholders/owners themselves in some small way). If a company invests in a long term view then they should be rewarded. If they don't, then they are not fulfilling their social contract. This would be encouraged if regulations were put in place to make investment in long term research count as much as profits in the stock markets' analysis of corporate performance. Furthermore, given the nature of some long term research costs, tax incentives should be made available to corporations that invest, and penalize those who don't.
Finally, there are many things that are just too big, and too important for corporations to handle. These items will need to have government funding. There's no way around it if you want to protect and provide needed advancements and resultant benefits to society.
Apple Must Pay $502.6 Million to VirnetX, Federal Jury Rules
...which has the key piece of information after the comma, lacking in the posting title. Did Slashdot editor do this on purpose, to generate sensationalist rhetoric in the comments section?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the USA had the largest open market for consumer electronics? If you give up that market, then you're likely to lose over half of your revenue (assuming your a global company). Don't know how that would solve the problem.
Patent Troll Wins Case Against Apple...Award Pending Appellate Ruling
Reading the article, Apple isn't paying anything until the final appellate court's adjudication, which very likely will invalidate the patents in question.
In my first draft I was going to point that out by saying 'under normal conditions a person...' I didn't think that had to be spelled out. I agree there are some people who can not control their thoughts and actions on a continuous basis. I disagree with your premise that it is most people (maybe?). While everyone may have transient moments, society as a whole is mostly under control or it wouldn't function.
There are two components missing from this concept: quality and consumers. As we move into a world where quality matters, offshore vendors will not cut the mustard. Time and time again from my own experience, and that of others we have seen vendors fail to deliver quality systems that meet security standards. If all companies slim down to the size you define - then there would be no employees - and therefore no consumers to generate the economic demand for the services they sell.
That's why any company trying to go to this extreme will fail.
Corporations who's stocks are publicly traded on the stock exchange are evaluated by the market for one thing - and one thing only: profitability. The constant refrain of CEO and bean counters is they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to increase profits and grow dividends. Whatever responsibility they have to customers is secondary and largely defined by law and regulation - with a thin veneer of social responsibility thrown in when customers hackles are raised on a subject. As corporate lawyers are quick to point out, a corporation is not guided by ethical or moral considerations, but by whether an action is legal or not at the end of the day.
As long as the risks and costs of breaches are less than the costs of ensuring a secure infrastructure, publicly traded companies will continue to choose the cheap way out to maximize profits. Corporate law and regulatory changes could change this equation to make it more costly not to address security, but in the current climate, unlikely to happen.
As consumers, we can also impact this by abandoning companies that do not have our interests at heart (which is basically all publicly traded companies with rare exception). This has the effect of raising the cost of not addressing security through loss of revenue, and therefore loss of profit. Consumers also need to realize that we really don't get anything for free. There are hidden costs that we will pay sooner or later, and we need to decide if it would be better to pay upfront for guarantees, or pay later in terms of injury or death in the worst cases (and by injury and death I'm not only talking about physical, but also other areas of our lives including our economic, social, and civic lives).
Finally, people who design and build systems (and this is not just the programmers and architects - this includes anyone impacting the choices regarding the design - including bean counters, project managers, marketing/sales people etc) need to recognize what mechanical engineers and architects learned in the last century: our creations can injure and kill people if care is not taken, and standards established for the deployment of these systems in the real world. Companies need to be held liable if they do not take care and build safe systems. Technologists need to band together, and share that message at every opportunity on every project. If the company isn't going to take responsibility, then who is going to be left holding the bag when things go really bad?
Even an air-gap is imperfect. If you want your servers to really be secure, you could dump them overboard in the Marianas Trench as well. Not only would you not be able to communicate with them, no one would be able to gain physical access either.
Of course, these extreme forms of addressing the problem negate the value of having connected systems in the first place - which is really a non-starter.
Someone said it before, but it bares repeating: as long as the risks and costs of breaches are less than the costs of ensuring a secure infrastructure, publicly traded companies will continue to choose the cheap way out to maximize profits. Corporate law and regulatory changes could change this equation.
As consumers, we can also impact this by abandoning companies that do not have our interests at heart (which is basically all publicly traded companies with rare exception) - which has the effect of raising the cost of not addressing security.
Finally, people who design and build systems (and this is not just the programmers and architects - this includes anyone impacting the choices regarding the design - including bean counters, project managers, marketing/sales people etc) need to recognize what mechanical engineers and architects learned in the last century - our creations can injure and kill people if care is not taken, and standards established for the deployment of these systems in the real world.
Bollocks! There are plenty of tools for creating on the internet. For example, you can download and install a tool on your Android phone that allows you to build applications - right on the phone (e.g. Android Studio etc)
The problem is you have to roll up your sleeves and not only get started, but follow through. That requires focus over time - which apparently is in short supply. Instant gratification does not build the next creative thing (whatever that may be).
There is no free lunch. There is no easy button for life.
OMG I'm so tired of hearing people tell me their bored. Being bored means you're willing to stay in the current rut you're in. It shows you're not willing to use your imagination, or to change your condition through your own action.
I can probably count on one hand how many times I've allowed myself to be really bored in my lifetime. Here's how I avoided boredom as a teenager, and continue today:
Do something else. Stop what you're doing and go do something else. I would skip Analytical Geometry (boring) and hang out with my friends elsewhere.
Daydream. Another form of doing something else - but while your body has to remain in one place, your mind doesn't have to. Let your mind wander. A variation of this is meditation - empty your mind and let it recharge while remaining aware of your surroundings. Doodling is another form of this that can also be useful.
Improve the boring thing. Another form of doing something else - think about and possibly start building a replacement for what is boring you at the moment. This not only helps you stop being bored, but could help others as well.
In the end it comes down to you. Boredom is just a state of mind - and you can control what you think.
Fair use is a doctrine in the law of the United States that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship. Fair use provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor test.
The first factor is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new.
The second factor takes into consideration the nature of the copyrighted work. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that the availability of copyright protection should not depend on the artistic quality or merit of a work, fair use analyses consider certain aspects of the work to be relevant, such as whether it is fictional or non-fictional...To prevent the private ownership of work that rightfully belongs in the public domain, facts and ideas are not protected by copyright—only their particular expression or fixation merits such protection. On the other hand, the social usefulness of freely available information can weigh against the appropriateness of copyright for certain fixations.
The third factor assesses the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work that has been used. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, the more likely the use will be considered fair...Using most or all of a work does not bar a finding of fair use. It simply makes the third factor less favorable to the defendant. For instance, in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. copying entire television programs for private viewing was upheld as fair use, at least when the copying is done for the purposes of time-shifting. In Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, the Ninth Circuit held that copying an entire photo to use as a thumbnail in online search results did not even weigh against fair use, "if the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use"...However, even the use of a small percentage of a work can make the third factor unfavorable to the defendant, because the "substantiality" of the portion used is considered in addition to the amount used. For instance, in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises,,[18] the U.S. Supreme Court held that a news article's quotation of fewer than 400 words from President Ford's 200,000-word memoir was sufficient to make the third fair use factor weigh against the defendants, because the portion taken was the "heart of the work." This use was ultimately found not to be fair
The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original. The burden of proof here rests on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work.
So - there will not be an internet where DRM controls everything because, by the definition defined by the Supreme Court, it can not impede fair use. This of course only applies specifically to the United States of America. Your country may have different laws concerning this subject. (IANAL)
Outside of FPS/MOBA players, who really cares about sub 100ms pings anyway?
Anyone requiring near real-time interactions, not only for FPS/MMORPG style games, also VR/AR, and anything else such as video conferencing, voice communications, where interactions between people or between people and machines require low latency. The more of these applications are developed and become useful to people, the more demand there will be for low latency networking.
Slashdot Mirror
Whitebox systems are used extensively in cloud computing...so the fear that the manufacturers are simply going to stop building systems that form the backbone of the services provided to those billions of cell phone users is ludicrous.
Now are things evolving? Certainly - as systems become more efficient over time, the numbers required drops - this is planned on purpose to make running those data centers cost effective. Which also means that the evolution and development of CPUs and the technologies surrounding will also continue - and as long as there are people willing to pay - there will be manufacturers building them, and people writing software to take advantage of it.
That being said, does that mean you'll be able to go down to your local BestBuy - and pick up a fully integrated/built gaming rig? Maybe not at some point, but you'll certainly be able to find the parts to build your own. With E-Sports going gangbusters - there is still demand for tweaked gaming rigs.
Finally - when all those youngsters get old, they are not going to want to be squinting at a tiny little screen through their bifocals...which may move some of them back towards stand alone systems - perhaps in a bit of a different form, but the idea is the same - and someone will be building those systems for that market.
I have questions about the data in the report:
1. does this include small systems such as Raspberry PI et al?
2. does this consider people building machines from parts?
Personally, I think people who want or need access to more robust workstation systems for gaming, number crunching, etc, will be able to buy or build the systems they need, for the foreseeable furture because:
1. Business runs on white box systems - including the services behind all of those hand held devices at the other end of the network connection.
2. E-Sports is not just about consoles - and we're talking $billions there.
Your average person who could care less will be fine, and so will those of us who work in the field, play video games, or need to be able to number crunch. Will how people doe these things change? Certainly, but maybe for the better in some ways - particularly for people who may need one of those functions infrequently - they don't have to invest in expensive equipment to leverage cloud based resources through their phone. For the geeks remaining - we'll all be fine.
You give people more credit for being 'smart' than they deserve. Mistakes do happen all the time. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
The best option is to develop better technology to detect asteroids farther away (a series of monitoring satellites covering all quadrants overlapping). Once detected other methods than brute force could be applied. I've seen ideas like using solar wind/particles to move it by making one side of the object a black body (to absorb energy - and thus apply a force), to applying force directly by 'docking' with it and using rockets to nudge it off course.
The real problem isn't how to move the asteroid, the real problem is early detection. The earlier we detect it, the less energy has to be applied to it.
Reference: Vint Cerf Digital Vellum
So this is what Vint Cerf meant by 'digital velum'...sort of.
Solution: Whitelist.
Don't allow email to come in without registering with you first.
Problem solved.
Yes, because:
mutation
of course, no one said it had to be a large business.
This is exactly why many things should not be left to business. Those things need to be handled by society - and for many things that means leveraging tax dollars to do what is right for the minority negatively impacted by policies - such as those driven by the Goldman-Sachs statement - from the majority. The research and development funded through these programs will actually help us all through the development of new technologies, and advancement of fundamental science applications beyond the original target, that would be in the public domain (if you need a reason beyond ethical considerations to do what is right). That, of course is a long term viewpoint which, while most beneficial, is not on the radar of current business economic theory which puts quarterly profit increases as the only measure of success.
A corporation is really a social contract between the owners of the corporation and society that allows that organization to gain benefits above and beyond that of a person (lower tax rates, special legal considerations/access...etc), not only to benefit the owners, but also to benefit society as a whole. With the means of low cost production distributed now in the hands of people given technological advancements in the last few decades (e.g. 3D printing, VR/AR, the Internet etc), and corporations automating both mental and physical tasks via information technology (cloud computing, AI etc) and robotics (the next evolution in harnessing technology to increase human power that started with domestication of animals, through mechanical impacts of the industrial age), the argument that jobs are the primary benefit of corporations to society is growing thin. Beyond profits for the shareholders/owners, what benefits to society do corporations provide?
I think that is the question we should all be asking ourselves as we make decisions about what products to purchase, and what investments to make (e.g. most working people have 401K accounts - and thus are shareholders/owners themselves in some small way). If a company invests in a long term view then they should be rewarded. If they don't, then they are not fulfilling their social contract. This would be encouraged if regulations were put in place to make investment in long term research count as much as profits in the stock markets' analysis of corporate performance. Furthermore, given the nature of some long term research costs, tax incentives should be made available to corporations that invest, and penalize those who don't.
Finally, there are many things that are just too big, and too important for corporations to handle. These items will need to have government funding. There's no way around it if you want to protect and provide needed advancements and resultant benefits to society.
Original article title was:
...which has the key piece of information after the comma, lacking in the posting title. Did Slashdot editor do this on purpose, to generate sensationalist rhetoric in the comments section?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the USA had the largest open market for consumer electronics? If you give up that market, then you're likely to lose over half of your revenue (assuming your a global company). Don't know how that would solve the problem.
should read:
Reading the article, Apple isn't paying anything until the final appellate court's adjudication, which very likely will invalidate the patents in question.
IANAL
In my first draft I was going to point that out by saying 'under normal conditions a person...' I didn't think that had to be spelled out. I agree there are some people who can not control their thoughts and actions on a continuous basis. I disagree with your premise that it is most people (maybe?). While everyone may have transient moments, society as a whole is mostly under control or it wouldn't function.
Dilbert cartoons plaster my cubical - all of which reflect something I've had to actually deal with.
This is my favorite
There are two components missing from this concept: quality and consumers. As we move into a world where quality matters, offshore vendors will not cut the mustard. Time and time again from my own experience, and that of others we have seen vendors fail to deliver quality systems that meet security standards. If all companies slim down to the size you define - then there would be no employees - and therefore no consumers to generate the economic demand for the services they sell.
That's why any company trying to go to this extreme will fail.
It's not as simple as that. Read this post (below in the thread) ...I'm not going to type all of that out again for you.
Corporations who's stocks are publicly traded on the stock exchange are evaluated by the market for one thing - and one thing only: profitability. The constant refrain of CEO and bean counters is they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to increase profits and grow dividends. Whatever responsibility they have to customers is secondary and largely defined by law and regulation - with a thin veneer of social responsibility thrown in when customers hackles are raised on a subject. As corporate lawyers are quick to point out, a corporation is not guided by ethical or moral considerations, but by whether an action is legal or not at the end of the day.
As long as the risks and costs of breaches are less than the costs of ensuring a secure infrastructure, publicly traded companies will continue to choose the cheap way out to maximize profits. Corporate law and regulatory changes could change this equation to make it more costly not to address security, but in the current climate, unlikely to happen.
As consumers, we can also impact this by abandoning companies that do not have our interests at heart (which is basically all publicly traded companies with rare exception). This has the effect of raising the cost of not addressing security through loss of revenue, and therefore loss of profit. Consumers also need to realize that we really don't get anything for free. There are hidden costs that we will pay sooner or later, and we need to decide if it would be better to pay upfront for guarantees, or pay later in terms of injury or death in the worst cases (and by injury and death I'm not only talking about physical, but also other areas of our lives including our economic, social, and civic lives).
Finally, people who design and build systems (and this is not just the programmers and architects - this includes anyone impacting the choices regarding the design - including bean counters, project managers, marketing/sales people etc) need to recognize what mechanical engineers and architects learned in the last century: our creations can injure and kill people if care is not taken, and standards established for the deployment of these systems in the real world. Companies need to be held liable if they do not take care and build safe systems. Technologists need to band together, and share that message at every opportunity on every project. If the company isn't going to take responsibility, then who is going to be left holding the bag when things go really bad?
Even an air-gap is imperfect. If you want your servers to really be secure, you could dump them overboard in the Marianas Trench as well. Not only would you not be able to communicate with them, no one would be able to gain physical access either.
Of course, these extreme forms of addressing the problem negate the value of having connected systems in the first place - which is really a non-starter.
Someone said it before, but it bares repeating: as long as the risks and costs of breaches are less than the costs of ensuring a secure infrastructure, publicly traded companies will continue to choose the cheap way out to maximize profits. Corporate law and regulatory changes could change this equation.
As consumers, we can also impact this by abandoning companies that do not have our interests at heart (which is basically all publicly traded companies with rare exception) - which has the effect of raising the cost of not addressing security.
Finally, people who design and build systems (and this is not just the programmers and architects - this includes anyone impacting the choices regarding the design - including bean counters, project managers, marketing/sales people etc) need to recognize what mechanical engineers and architects learned in the last century - our creations can injure and kill people if care is not taken, and standards established for the deployment of these systems in the real world.
Bollocks! There are plenty of tools for creating on the internet. For example, you can download and install a tool on your Android phone that allows you to build applications - right on the phone (e.g. Android Studio etc)
The problem is you have to roll up your sleeves and not only get started, but follow through. That requires focus over time - which apparently is in short supply. Instant gratification does not build the next creative thing (whatever that may be).
There is no free lunch. There is no easy button for life.
their ==> they're (typo - muscle memory is both a good, and bad thing)
If you're bored, you have time to daydream.
OMG I'm so tired of hearing people tell me their bored. Being bored means you're willing to stay in the current rut you're in. It shows you're not willing to use your imagination, or to change your condition through your own action.
I can probably count on one hand how many times I've allowed myself to be really bored in my lifetime. Here's how I avoided boredom as a teenager, and continue today:
In the end it comes down to you. Boredom is just a state of mind - and you can control what you think.
Reference: Wikipedia article on Fair Use
So - there will not be an internet where DRM controls everything because, by the definition defined by the Supreme Court, it can not impede fair use. This of course only applies specifically to the United States of America. Your country may have different laws concerning this subject. (IANAL)
Outside of FPS/MOBA players, who really cares about sub 100ms pings anyway?
Anyone requiring near real-time interactions, not only for FPS/MMORPG style games, also VR/AR, and anything else such as video conferencing, voice communications, where interactions between people or between people and machines require low latency. The more of these applications are developed and become useful to people, the more demand there will be for low latency networking.
Your sample size is clearly too small.