In order to travel long distances in space, we will need to develop systems to keep us alive indefinitely. This will also benefit us if, heaven forbid, some catastrophic event occurs to the earth that limits or removes its ability to sustain life.
Spinoffs of technology from this effort will help people in their everday lives in immeasurable ways (velcro, Tang, space blankets, and other exotic materials that save lives or allow us to do things previously impossible are a result of our manned space program).
Robots currently don't have the intelligence and flexibility to cope with changing environments quickly (look how long it took the mars rovers to cover the few miles during their explorations, that would have been a day trip for manned exploration).
There is no substitute, yet, for a human being on the ground. There is a whole level of real-time experiences that a robot can not take in or comment on - that humans are more than capable of doing. Aside from collecting specimens and taking pictures, robots will never have the immediacy that humans offer.
The idea of a completely automated space program, is similar to the idea of a completely remote controlled military aparatus. I think we can all agree that, except in rare circumstances where a robot would perform better (air combat beyond gforce limits of human pilots, and remote reconnaisance), war must be fought by humans, due to the ability to make the right decisions that AI is incompetent to make - and, more importantly, to not distance ourselves so much from the life and death on the battlefield as to make it easy for us to choose war as a first option. Human beings bring moral and esthetical issues into the mix, which robots, for all their precision, lack.
The article posits that we should, at most, do due diligence by focusing our research efforts on our likely competitors' patent portfolio in the proprietary world and identifying prior art. We shouldn't worry about possible legal action unless it comes onto the radar because it is historically very difficult for plaintifs to win patent cases due, usually to the fact that prior art will come to light when the high powered experts and lawyers wade in for the defense. We don't have the money to file patents - so we shouldn't file patents, goes the argument.
However, there is one flaw in that view: most smalltime developers don't have the money to hire high powered experts or lawyers, and must depend on the good fortune of having volunteers or nonprofit organizations work the case. Additionally, the article does not take into account the motivations of a large company (such as Microsoft), who's core business, and thus billions of dollars in revenue, is being threatened. They are likely to begin sueing everyone they can target when the profits start to dry up - not in any hope of winning - in the desire to disrupt and bankrupt the targeted projects to keep their business model afloat. To them it is survival of their revenue stream, at any cost - to hell with new inventions and technology for people. They would have us sitting in caves lit by candles if they thought they could make their margins on candle wax. They have the team of lawyers and the 'war chest' to do it.
Given this view, I think it very important for the Free/Open Source community to patent our ideas - and furthermore challenge the idea of patents by holding them under a free use liscense. Perhaps a nonprofit group, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation could manage the portfolio, and be a central point where donations can flow to support 'free patent' efforts. This way we, as a group, can pool our resources to unequivically counter these attempts to disrupt the evolution of software development that is just gaining steam.
Even if we are developers, most of us have real jobs, or at least other projects that we are working on full time. We don't have time to "get under the hood" (see next section) and find out how the Linux kernel works...
Would you like some cheese with that whine? I guess the question is, how do the thousands of other developers who are doing just that provide feedback? I think the issue you bring up here is just an issue of dedication. If you desire the fix or new functionality bad enough you will do what it takes. Your first point does nothing to mythologize the key strength of open source.
In reality, it's generally very, very difficult to fix real bugs in anything but the most trivial Open Source software. I know that I have rarely done it, and I am an experienced developer. Most of the time, what really happens is that you tell the actual programmer about the problem and wait and see if he/she fixes it.
This is just an extension of the same argument above. Furthermore the author acknowledges that he has 'rarely done it' himself; he is making assumptions about what other programmers are doing. Someone is doing it (which they obviously are, as I have seen in various changelogs of various packages) and as such provides a testament to the amazing swiftness of fixes to open source bugs that is unmatchable by proprietary software.
Sure, I can sell "support", but to be honest the idea of answering phones and emails all day really isn't my idea of a fun time... It's a bittersweet situation, because on the one hand, I am able to build some wonderful software as a result of Open Source, but on the other hand, this comes back to bite me in the butt when I want to write something to be sold for real money
This sounds like the author has the wrong business model to me. Just because you don't like doing something a certain way, doesn't mean that is the wrong way for someone else to do it. The fact of the matter is there are some niche markets for software - but by and large, the free software packages out there provide users options other than proprietary software packages. You can't turn back the clock, if you want to make money in this new environment, you will have to get good at providing service in the form of personalizing your software for the specific needs of your users on an iterative basis. If you hang up your shingle in the virtual marketplace, you also need to have some infrastructure, if the popularity of your package(s) goes beyond a few emails a week. The days of phenomenal growth by simply shrinkwrapping software are over.
While this can also be true for open source projects, the "design by committee" that goes on with community projects often results in a more bloated and less focused product that tries to be all things to all people.
This same argument can be leveled at proprietary software. Also, a sample of open source projects does not support the theory that this is 'often' the case.
On 'scratching a personal itch' the author says, But is this a good way in general to do things? For example, this implies that most of the things that get implemented will have direct relevance to developers and programmers.
This is not the case, even as the author admits (open office, and other 'user centric' as opposed to 'programmer centric' tools). However, his assumption that usability of these projects is 'not there' is an arbitrary judgement; there are a growing number of projects that scratch the itch of the end users, as opposed to the desires of the programmers exclusively.
On 'More choice is better' the author states, While this might seem like a Good Thing at first (biodiversity), it could also be argued that eventually trying to reduce the choice somewhat for the end-user would also be beneficial...a reasonable pre-selection of options is better for people who don't have the time or inclination to make their computer be their life.
When I was going to school we had a general computer 'lab' that was 100% MicroShaft - DOS and Windoze - and a large bay of printers connected to this network. This 'lab' was generally used by the Liberal Arts students, as well as the Computer Information Systems students (there were SQL clients available on the DOS machines to connect to the 'scratch' database servers used for these classes).
Since I was in the computer science cirriculum, I also had access to the computer science lab that consisted of various Sun Sparc pizza boxes and servers - as well as a bank of dialin modems (this was before the advent of DSL/highspeed internet access), with which I could work on and submit my projects remotely. The Sun workstations came equipped with Mozaic - and the first web browsing I did was in that lab.
At the time, there were no publicly accessible MACs on campus, although several professors did have MACs for their own use.
I am not sure about today, but I would imagine the Suns have probably been replaced by Linux machines in most cases - but the Windows boxes probably dominate for general purpose use. Most students probably have their own machines, so network access is probably more of a factor than having labs for this purpose - but I could be wrong (what is standard practice at most institutions today?)
Okay...I read the article...they are planning to tax these devices at point of sale - which just means higher prices for these devices and the resultant lower volume of sales.
How do they handle this if you roll your own device?
I am a private pilot - but have not been able to keep up my currency enough to fly due to the costs associated with it.
This will open the door to allow me to get stick and rudder time without the associated high costs of keeping up a traditional rating.
Eventually I might also be able to get certification to build, inspect and maintain my own aircraft - something I always thought was out of reach.
I love it!
There will probably be a few Darwin awards issued as a result of this. I think the vast majority of people will be those with prior experience, and either not enough money or the inability to pass the regular physical (not really necessary for lower performance aircraft IMHO - if you can see well enough to drive a car, you should be okay to fly a low performance aircraft).
The FAA has attempted to balance the desires of the potential sport pilots with the need for safety - and have done a good job. I look forward to getting involved in the sport pilot scene. Hope to see you at the local strip!
Re:Have to be careful here with music tastes
on
IT's Musical Habits
·
· Score: 0
These issues - particularly where any art is concerned - are esthetical, and hence can not have a 'right' or 'wrong' assigned to them in some overriding 'universal law of music listening' or any other such bellicose house of cards.
The biggest problem in the world today is intollerance.
Why must I adhere to your view of the world - particularly if I am not infringing on your rights and privileges in so doing?
The bigger question is, why can't most people see the moral imperative in leaving people alone to worship, entertain, govern, and work as they see fit? Why is everyone so concerned with supremacy, both real and imagined in all aspects of life, than in what is really important: a life well lived?
It continues to boggle my mind - as it seems crystal clear to me. Of course, I would much rather live in a world populated with a rich variation of people and cultures than a world where everyone is identical in thought and action. While I do not personally like rap music, I would never be presumptuous enough to say you should not listen to it if that is what moves you.
...although the paper's editors were able to edit and design pages for Monday's planned 48-page edition, the computerized pages couldn't be transmitted to the paper's Freedom Center printing plant on the Near North Side.
Sounds like a proprietary format/OS/software might have doomed them from a quick recovery. If they were saving the files in a standard flat file format, or were able to extract the files from the database to such a format, transportation to another computer at the printing plant should have been tivial at best:
tar cvf largetarball.tar * ftp ppmachine (login process) put largetarball.tar quit (login to printing plant machine) tar xvf largetarball.tar
Voila - your files have been transfered.
Poor system design - specifically the inclusion of 'get out of jail free' cards in the form of open standards and tools for extracting data to different formats and moving the data around between machines - is the number one problem associated with proprietary systems design. I would require all new systems have more flexible capabilities for several reasons:
1. Disaster recovery. 2. Protection from unscrupulous vendors, or the vissisitudes of the business world (vendor goes out of business due to downturn of no fault of their own). 3. Protection from software glitches. 4. Migration of data from one software platform to another as needs change.
A properly setup H.323 network (VOIP) should have a gateway that connects the VOIP world to the POTS network - voila! Your pizza is served! As more and more of the network is converted to VOIP, less POTS gateways will be needed - until one magical day when there is no POTS network (20+ years from now - my guestimate).
No 911 service! - BS - many people today opt for having a cellphone only - and disconnect, or never connect POTS in the first place. How do they get 911 service!!!? Through their cellphone! So the fact there is not any dialtone in their house is a moot point for exclusive cellphone user. VOIP landline phone users will be responsible for making sure their equipment has backup power - not only their phone - but all the firewalls/routers on their network that provide connectivity to the outside network for VOIP telephony, as well. In a cable company model, they will have a digital splitter to provide your phone service via a VOIP phone; for DSL, you will need a DSL modem, an (wireless) ethernet switch(router)/firewall and a VOIP phone - or software on your computer that emulates a VOIP phone - either way, the user will need to provide backup power for their phones when the power goes down. As mentioned before, the technology is in flux - so you will see changes as the best way from a functional and cost perspective shakes out. A large number of tech saavy users are already willing to take responcibility for keeping their phones charged up - this will carry over into the VOIP space, as well, in the long run.
Security problems? - BS - as pointed out elsewhere, your 900Mhz cordless and your cellphone are wide open for interception. If you want really secure communications, don't use any transport medium. If you accept a lower level of security, that is 'good enough' - then I am sure there well be encryption options available, either through special voip phone sets (as can be found now in the POTS world today), or in the form of software to emulate this functionality on a computer.
The article presented was thinly disguised FUD - nothing more.
Given a large vocabulary, we must consider two aspects when thinking about intelligence and writing in general. They are communication, and artistic values.
Communication is the ability to get a message across. It takes a sender and a receiver. Assuming our sender has a large vocabulary, the receiver's vocabulary must be taken into consideration when communication occurs. Additionally, the ratio of noise to content on the communication channel can also effects the outcome.
Artistic value is our understanding of how language is used to entertain. It can be through the artistic twist of words in a poem, or the smooth flow of story that brings a reader to the end without his noticing the hours that passed in the interim. Everything written has some artistic value (whether intentionally, in the form of Shakespeare's "Othello" - or unintentionally, in the form of motherboard technical manuals - with their near hilarious translations).
Given: 1. Forums are a means of getting information quickly across to an audience - and that the posts generally 'fall off the bottom' in short order. 2. Average slashdot readers have the IQ of a chimpanzee, and the vocabulary of an orangutan.
Is it any wonder the articles and posts, herein, contain such a low rating? Conversely, would it be 'intelligent' to post articles that were not suitable for your audience?
The real question is, why are Mac users not smart enough to post intelligible articles on slashdot?:P
I'm somewhat saddened by the fact that a Asimov book is getting put on screen with Wil Smith as main actor, but hey, that pleases the masses. I will go see it and take it for what it is (good entertainment, nothing more)... Not that I have read the book, but I plan to do it in the near future.
You are making a big assumption there. Isn't it entirely within the realm of possiblity that a movie maker could produce a good representation, in its own right, of the many stories (not just this book) Asimov wrote before and after 'I Robot' exploring his ideas regarding robotics? More disturbingly, isn't it a bit presumptuous of you to make a statement regarding the relevance of the screen representation - when you self admittedly haven't even read the book? How do you know it is 'nothing more' than good entertainment? Finally, why, exactly, is Wil Smith not a good main character for a movie adaptation of an Asimov book?
Go see the d$%# movie, then come back here are make your statements; your assumptions don't add anything to the conversation - and force me to waste my time pointing out the obvious.
Meet the functional requirements of the task. Robustness and long-term stability and security. Transparency to determine when changes are needed and that undesired functions are not being performed. Verifiable trustworthiness of all three of the above. Ease and low cost of training for effective use. Ease and low cost of maintenance. Minimization of maintenance. Ease and low cost of modification. Ease of replacement. Compatibility and ease of integration with other applications. Long-term availability of individuals able to train, maintain, modify, determine need for changes, etc.
If you look at a development framework, such as Zope, it seems to follow most of his requirements.
I think some of the items on his list will be very hard to define or implement - for example, 'ease of replacement' makes the assumption that something exists with which to replace the software; 'compatibility and ease of integration with other applications' assumes that we have created a universal data interchange specification that everyone adheres to, and none intentionally break.
I agree with his conclusion - that we will only see this come out of the open source/free software movement - coupled with new ways of doing business outside of the tried and true 'production line' model. Sadly, the entrenched rich corporations will fight this tooth and nail - in fact have already been fighting, as seen in the SCO lawsuite and the maneuverings of Microsoft. Who will win? I put my money on the moneybags...even if they drive their companies into the ground, they will escape on their golden parachutes.
The database is probably mirrored to another system - and eventually backed up for analysis purposes on a less volatile medium - stored away in some black vault under the NSA building in Ft Meade Md., after having been used to suppliment their existing data warehouses.
This bill is equivalent to outlawing the production, manufacture and use of scissors because they might be used to stab someone.
The potential loss of utility outweighs the alleged protection imparted.
People get stabbed by scissors from time to time, and the police and justice system deal with the actual crime committed quite well - without closing down the scissors manufacturers or arresting large number of outlaw scissors users!
The greed of these people has overpowered any shred of good sense they may have had left. Now I know the USA is in decline...:(
Why not use a good application framework - like Zope/Plone? This way your rendering is consistent and follows standards without having to manage alot of extra code. Tweak the stylesheets as desired (W3C CSS compatible) and leverage the power of the backend scripting capabilities (in this case python).
I have not seen any problems with rendering of scroll bars, selection boxes, text entry widgets, etc...at all between Mozilla or IE using this system.
Expand your minds and try something new, instead of trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
This is a great example of why the opaque Windows API coupled with proprietary software is such a problem - who knows how many undocumented APIs are waiting to be (or already being) exploited?
At least with open source you have the option of fixing the API or the program if that is the problem, instead of waiting and hoping for a corporate entity, who does not have your best interests at heart, to publish a patch.
Okay - I've got my tinfoil hat squarely on - and tongue in cheek.
It occurs to me that this could be an evil plan to remove older technology from the potential hacking marketplace.
Think about it: everyone throws away their old computers (perfectly suitable as Linux workstations/servers) - forcing people who want to build low cost servers to buy new machines instead.
Taking this further into the realm of the strange, the move to force adoption of DRM technologies would get a boost in the arm from the acquisition of new computers due to the lack of used alternatives...:0
Okay...maybe not... (takes tinfoil hat off and slinks away)
What about making our browsers recognize and edit XML natively? I think that would solve the limitations imposed by HTML - and would provide much needed extensibility for communication between peers.
Slashdot Mirror
In order to travel long distances in space, we will need to develop systems to keep us alive indefinitely. This will also benefit us if, heaven forbid, some catastrophic event occurs to the earth that limits or removes its ability to sustain life.
Spinoffs of technology from this effort will help people in their everday lives in immeasurable ways (velcro, Tang, space blankets, and other exotic materials that save lives or allow us to do things previously impossible are a result of our manned space program).
Robots currently don't have the intelligence and flexibility to cope with changing environments quickly (look how long it took the mars rovers to cover the few miles during their explorations, that would have been a day trip for manned exploration).
There is no substitute, yet, for a human being on the ground. There is a whole level of real-time experiences that a robot can not take in or comment on - that humans are more than capable of doing. Aside from collecting specimens and taking pictures, robots will never have the immediacy that humans offer.
The idea of a completely automated space program, is similar to the idea of a completely remote controlled military aparatus. I think we can all agree that, except in rare circumstances where a robot would perform better (air combat beyond gforce limits of human pilots, and remote reconnaisance), war must be fought by humans, due to the ability to make the right decisions that AI is incompetent to make - and, more importantly, to not distance ourselves so much from the life and death on the battlefield as to make it easy for us to choose war as a first option. Human beings bring moral and esthetical issues into the mix, which robots, for all their precision, lack.
The article posits that we should, at most, do due diligence by focusing our research efforts on our likely competitors' patent portfolio in the proprietary world and identifying prior art. We shouldn't worry about possible legal action unless it comes onto the radar because it is historically very difficult for plaintifs to win patent cases due, usually to the fact that prior art will come to light when the high powered experts and lawyers wade in for the defense. We don't have the money to file patents - so we shouldn't file patents, goes the argument.
However, there is one flaw in that view: most smalltime developers don't have the money to hire high powered experts or lawyers, and must depend on the good fortune of having volunteers or nonprofit organizations work the case. Additionally, the article does not take into account the motivations of a large company (such as Microsoft), who's core business, and thus billions of dollars in revenue, is being threatened. They are likely to begin sueing everyone they can target when the profits start to dry up - not in any hope of winning - in the desire to disrupt and bankrupt the targeted projects to keep their business model afloat. To them it is survival of their revenue stream, at any cost - to hell with new inventions and technology for people. They would have us sitting in caves lit by candles if they thought they could make their margins on candle wax. They have the team of lawyers and the 'war chest' to do it.
Given this view, I think it very important for the Free/Open Source community to patent our ideas - and furthermore challenge the idea of patents by holding them under a free use liscense. Perhaps a nonprofit group, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation could manage the portfolio, and be a central point where donations can flow to support 'free patent' efforts. This way we, as a group, can pool our resources to unequivically counter these attempts to disrupt the evolution of software development that is just gaining steam.
Actually it will be called 'Lindows', as Microsoft now has the rights to that name after the settlement with Linspire (formerly Lindows).
Even if we are developers, most of us have real jobs, or at least other projects that we are working on full time. We don't have time to "get under the hood" (see next section) and find out how the Linux kernel works...
Would you like some cheese with that whine? I guess the question is, how do the thousands of other developers who are doing just that provide feedback? I think the issue you bring up here is just an issue of dedication. If you desire the fix or new functionality bad enough you will do what it takes. Your first point does nothing to mythologize the key strength of open source.
In reality, it's generally very, very difficult to fix real bugs in anything but the most trivial Open Source software. I know that I have rarely done it, and I am an experienced developer. Most of the time, what really happens is that you tell the actual programmer about the problem and wait and see if he/she fixes it.
This is just an extension of the same argument above. Furthermore the author acknowledges that he has 'rarely done it' himself; he is making assumptions about what other programmers are doing. Someone is doing it (which they obviously are, as I have seen in various changelogs of various packages) and as such provides a testament to the amazing swiftness of fixes to open source bugs that is unmatchable by proprietary software.
Sure, I can sell "support", but to be honest the idea of answering phones and emails all day really isn't my idea of a fun time... It's a bittersweet situation, because on the one hand, I am able to build some wonderful software as a result of Open Source, but on the other hand, this comes back to bite me in the butt when I want to write something to be sold for real money
This sounds like the author has the wrong business model to me. Just because you don't like doing something a certain way, doesn't mean that is the wrong way for someone else to do it. The fact of the matter is there are some niche markets for software - but by and large, the free software packages out there provide users options other than proprietary software packages. You can't turn back the clock, if you want to make money in this new environment, you will have to get good at providing service in the form of personalizing your software for the specific needs of your users on an iterative basis. If you hang up your shingle in the virtual marketplace, you also need to have some infrastructure, if the popularity of your package(s) goes beyond a few emails a week. The days of phenomenal growth by simply shrinkwrapping software are over.
While this can also be true for open source projects, the "design by committee" that goes on with community projects often results in a more bloated and less focused product that tries to be all things to all people.
This same argument can be leveled at proprietary software. Also, a sample of open source projects does not support the theory that this is 'often' the case.
On 'scratching a personal itch' the author says, But is this a good way in general to do things? For example, this implies that most of the things that get implemented will have direct relevance to developers and programmers.
This is not the case, even as the author admits (open office, and other 'user centric' as opposed to 'programmer centric' tools). However, his assumption that usability of these projects is 'not there' is an arbitrary judgement; there are a growing number of projects that scratch the itch of the end users, as opposed to the desires of the programmers exclusively.
On 'More choice is better' the author states, While this might seem like a Good Thing at first (biodiversity), it could also be argued that eventually trying to reduce the choice somewhat for the end-user would also be beneficial...a reasonable pre-selection of options is better for people who don't have the time or inclination to make their computer be their life.
This is the case of the gla
...slirp-slirp-slirp-slirp-slirp....
I was talking about building your own wifi device from scratch.
Not only are you racist, you are ignorant, as well.
When I was going to school we had a general computer 'lab' that was 100% MicroShaft - DOS and Windoze - and a large bay of printers connected to this network. This 'lab' was generally used by the Liberal Arts students, as well as the Computer Information Systems students (there were SQL clients available on the DOS machines to connect to the 'scratch' database servers used for these classes).
Since I was in the computer science cirriculum, I also had access to the computer science lab that consisted of various Sun Sparc pizza boxes and servers - as well as a bank of dialin modems (this was before the advent of DSL/highspeed internet access), with which I could work on and submit my projects remotely. The Sun workstations came equipped with Mozaic - and the first web browsing I did was in that lab.
At the time, there were no publicly accessible MACs on campus, although several professors did have MACs for their own use.
I am not sure about today, but I would imagine the Suns have probably been replaced by Linux machines in most cases - but the Windows boxes probably dominate for general purpose use. Most students probably have their own machines, so network access is probably more of a factor than having labs for this purpose - but I could be wrong (what is standard practice at most institutions today?)
Okay...I read the article...they are planning to tax these devices at point of sale - which just means higher prices for these devices and the resultant lower volume of sales.
How do they handle this if you roll your own device?
So, they are going to what - count the number of wifi devices you have in your house? How is this supposed to work?
I am a private pilot - but have not been able to keep up my currency enough to fly due to the costs associated with it.
This will open the door to allow me to get stick and rudder time without the associated high costs of keeping up a traditional rating.
Eventually I might also be able to get certification to build, inspect and maintain my own aircraft - something I always thought was out of reach.
I love it!
There will probably be a few Darwin awards issued as a result of this. I think the vast majority of people will be those with prior experience, and either not enough money or the inability to pass the regular physical (not really necessary for lower performance aircraft IMHO - if you can see well enough to drive a car, you should be okay to fly a low performance aircraft).
The FAA has attempted to balance the desires of the potential sport pilots with the need for safety - and have done a good job. I look forward to getting involved in the sport pilot scene. Hope to see you at the local strip!
These issues - particularly where any art is concerned - are esthetical, and hence can not have a 'right' or 'wrong' assigned to them in some overriding 'universal law of music listening' or any other such bellicose house of cards.
The biggest problem in the world today is intollerance.
Why must I adhere to your view of the world - particularly if I am not infringing on your rights and privileges in so doing?
The bigger question is, why can't most people see the moral imperative in leaving people alone to worship, entertain, govern, and work as they see fit? Why is everyone so concerned with supremacy, both real and imagined in all aspects of life, than in what is really important: a life well lived?
It continues to boggle my mind - as it seems crystal clear to me. Of course, I would much rather live in a world populated with a rich variation of people and cultures than a world where everyone is identical in thought and action. While I do not personally like rap music, I would never be presumptuous enough to say you should not listen to it if that is what moves you.
...although the paper's editors were able to edit and design pages for Monday's planned 48-page edition, the computerized pages couldn't be transmitted to the paper's Freedom Center printing plant on the Near North Side.
Sounds like a proprietary format/OS/software might have doomed them from a quick recovery. If they were saving the files in a standard flat file format, or were able to extract the files from the database to such a format, transportation to another computer at the printing plant should have been tivial at best:
tar cvf largetarball.tar *
ftp ppmachine
(login process)
put largetarball.tar
quit
(login to printing plant machine)
tar xvf largetarball.tar
Voila - your files have been transfered.
Poor system design - specifically the inclusion of 'get out of jail free' cards in the form of open standards and tools for extracting data to different formats and moving the data around between machines - is the number one problem associated with proprietary systems design. I would require all new systems have more flexible capabilities for several reasons:
1. Disaster recovery.
2. Protection from unscrupulous vendors, or the vissisitudes of the business world (vendor goes out of business due to downturn of no fault of their own).
3. Protection from software glitches.
4. Migration of data from one software platform to another as needs change.
Connecting to the POTS world:
A properly setup H.323 network (VOIP) should have a gateway that connects the VOIP world to the POTS network - voila! Your pizza is served! As more and more of the network is converted to VOIP, less POTS gateways will be needed - until one magical day when there is no POTS network (20+ years from now - my guestimate).
No 911 service! - BS - many people today opt for having a cellphone only - and disconnect, or never connect POTS in the first place. How do they get 911 service!!!? Through their cellphone! So the fact there is not any dialtone in their house is a moot point for exclusive cellphone user. VOIP landline phone users will be responsible for making sure their equipment has backup power - not only their phone - but all the firewalls/routers on their network that provide connectivity to the outside network for VOIP telephony, as well. In a cable company model, they will have a digital splitter to provide your phone service via a VOIP phone; for DSL, you will need a DSL modem, an (wireless) ethernet switch(router)/firewall and a VOIP phone - or software on your computer that emulates a VOIP phone - either way, the user will need to provide backup power for their phones when the power goes down. As mentioned before, the technology is in flux - so you will see changes as the best way from a functional and cost perspective shakes out. A large number of tech saavy users are already willing to take responcibility for keeping their phones charged up - this will carry over into the VOIP space, as well, in the long run.
Security problems? - BS - as pointed out elsewhere, your 900Mhz cordless and your cellphone are wide open for interception. If you want really secure communications, don't use any transport medium. If you accept a lower level of security, that is 'good enough' - then I am sure there well be encryption options available, either through special voip phone sets (as can be found now in the POTS world today), or in the form of software to emulate this functionality on a computer.
The article presented was thinly disguised FUD - nothing more.
If major governments can be convinced these are "terroristic threats" we might actually get some police action...
Maybe, if there is a Haliburton gas pipeline that needs to go throught their property.
Given a large vocabulary, we must consider two aspects when thinking about intelligence and writing in general. They are communication, and artistic values.
:P
Communication is the ability to get a message across. It takes a sender and a receiver. Assuming our sender has a large vocabulary, the receiver's vocabulary must be taken into consideration when communication occurs. Additionally, the ratio of noise to content on the communication channel can also effects the outcome.
Artistic value is our understanding of how language is used to entertain. It can be through the artistic twist of words in a poem, or the smooth flow of story that brings a reader to the end without his noticing the hours that passed in the interim. Everything written has some artistic value (whether intentionally, in the form of Shakespeare's "Othello" - or unintentionally, in the form of motherboard technical manuals - with their near hilarious translations).
Given:
1. Forums are a means of getting information quickly across to an audience - and that the posts generally 'fall off the bottom' in short order.
2. Average slashdot readers have the IQ of a chimpanzee, and the vocabulary of an orangutan.
Is it any wonder the articles and posts, herein, contain such a low rating? Conversely, would it be 'intelligent' to post articles that were not suitable for your audience?
The real question is, why are Mac users not smart enough to post intelligible articles on slashdot?
I'm somewhat saddened by the fact that a Asimov book is getting put on screen with Wil Smith as main actor, but hey, that pleases the masses. I will go see it and take it for what it is (good entertainment, nothing more)... Not that I have read the book, but I plan to do it in the near future.
You are making a big assumption there. Isn't it entirely within the realm of possiblity that a movie maker could produce a good representation, in its own right, of the many stories (not just this book) Asimov wrote before and after 'I Robot' exploring his ideas regarding robotics? More disturbingly, isn't it a bit presumptuous of you to make a statement regarding the relevance of the screen representation - when you self admittedly haven't even read the book? How do you know it is 'nothing more' than good entertainment? Finally, why, exactly, is Wil Smith not a good main character for a movie adaptation of an Asimov book?
Go see the d$%# movie, then come back here are make your statements; your assumptions don't add anything to the conversation - and force me to waste my time pointing out the obvious.
Dan's list of requirements for this software is :
Meet the functional requirements of the task.
Robustness and long-term stability and security.
Transparency to determine when changes are needed and that undesired functions are not being performed.
Verifiable trustworthiness of all three of the above.
Ease and low cost of training for effective use.
Ease and low cost of maintenance.
Minimization of maintenance.
Ease and low cost of modification.
Ease of replacement.
Compatibility and ease of integration with other applications.
Long-term availability of individuals able to train, maintain, modify, determine need for changes, etc.
If you look at a development framework, such as Zope, it seems to follow most of his requirements.
I think some of the items on his list will be very hard to define or implement - for example, 'ease of replacement' makes the assumption that something exists with which to replace the software; 'compatibility and ease of integration with other applications' assumes that we have created a universal data interchange specification that everyone adheres to, and none intentionally break.
I agree with his conclusion - that we will only see this come out of the open source/free software movement - coupled with new ways of doing business outside of the tried and true 'production line' model. Sadly, the entrenched rich corporations will fight this tooth and nail - in fact have already been fighting, as seen in the SCO lawsuite and the maneuverings of Microsoft. Who will win? I put my money on the moneybags...even if they drive their companies into the ground, they will escape on their golden parachutes.
in the database
The database is probably mirrored to another system - and eventually backed up for analysis purposes on a less volatile medium - stored away in some black vault under the NSA building in Ft Meade Md., after having been used to suppliment their existing data warehouses.
Oh, you can be sure they have it somewhere.
This bill is equivalent to outlawing the production, manufacture and use of scissors because they might be used to stab someone.
:(
The potential loss of utility outweighs the alleged protection imparted.
People get stabbed by scissors from time to time, and the police and justice system deal with the actual crime committed quite well - without closing down the scissors manufacturers or arresting large number of outlaw scissors users!
The greed of these people has overpowered any shred of good sense they may have had left. Now I know the USA is in decline...
Why not use a good application framework - like Zope/Plone? This way your rendering is consistent and follows standards without having to manage alot of extra code. Tweak the stylesheets as desired (W3C CSS compatible) and leverage the power of the backend scripting capabilities (in this case python).
I have not seen any problems with rendering of scroll bars, selection boxes, text entry widgets, etc...at all between Mozilla or IE using this system.
Expand your minds and try something new, instead of trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
And what, pray tell, does that have to do with my paranoid delusions?
This is a great example of why the opaque Windows API coupled with proprietary software is such a problem - who knows how many undocumented APIs are waiting to be (or already being) exploited?
At least with open source you have the option of fixing the API or the program if that is the problem, instead of waiting and hoping for a corporate entity, who does not have your best interests at heart, to publish a patch.
To make the product as nomade as possible...
It must be cutting edge technology; the terms they use to describe it are baffling, to say the least.
Okay - I've got my tinfoil hat squarely on - and tongue in cheek.
:0
It occurs to me that this could be an evil plan to remove older technology from the potential hacking marketplace.
Think about it: everyone throws away their old computers (perfectly suitable as Linux workstations/servers) - forcing people who want to build low cost servers to buy new machines instead.
Taking this further into the realm of the strange, the move to force adoption of DRM technologies would get a boost in the arm from the acquisition of new computers due to the lack of used alternatives...
Okay...maybe not... (takes tinfoil hat off and slinks away)
What about making our browsers recognize and edit XML natively? I think that would solve the limitations imposed by HTML - and would provide much needed extensibility for communication between peers.