In Canada we have amazing food labelling laws, but we're pushing them to include whether food is "natural" or "genetically engineered". The problem isn't so much the labelling but the differentiation...
... I've heard US congress people say that they'd push for better food labelling if that's what the US people wanted. Why don't you start asking for it?
If I go to the store and buy some spreadable cheese product, I get told on the package if it contains cheese or not. Americans don't. That scares me, at least.
The problem is not that the site "doesn't work" with Linux browsers -- that would be a browser problem -- it's that it checks what OS you're running and denies you access under anything but Windows/Mac.
There is no reason to check what OS the client is using and deny them access based on it.
This is old news. I don't remember when I first heard this; might have been summer, 1999. They were testing this technology at two major airports as I remember it.
What really bothers me is that there are now concealed weapons that can't be found with metal detectors (non-metalic guns and knives, for instance). What 'hackers' need to do is work out a way to properly secure airplanes the way they've been giving information on how to secure networks. Unlike network administrators, I think the average airport is actually concerned about security and would take suggestions if we put some good ones together.
We can't always just say "this is a breach of my privacy" when the other side is saying "it's that or getting hijacked!" We won't get any public support that way.
Lets throw around some real ideas on how to detect contraband, etc. without (excessively) invading peoples' privacy.
Note: I say 'excessively' because if you have a rod in your back and didn't want anyone to know, they'll find out if they're in line with you at the airport. This is pretty unavoidable. However, having to be "naked-ish" for the security guard isn't great.
Idea: if we used the same technology with an AI system that recognised non-human items and displayed those areas on the security screen? Open source of course;-)
We're talking about large data-set crunching. This isn't data that'll fit in the cache, so we need to pull it into the CPU quickly, right? Are we assuming that large amounts of data will be processed sequientially or that they'll be accessing from various parts of RAM randomly (like most data processing solutions... that aren't Video)?
For the later, use SDRAM or DDRDRAM.
PS, I wouldn't mind if someone built a quick memory benchmark test to run as a user app and see how fast each memory system is for large dataset manipulations, WITH kernel services running (swap, cache, etc.... multithreading has to be accounted for here).
It would be a good idea to consider the AMD Athlon platform for these systems. I say this because of the much higher (200Mhz) external bandwidth and better bus handling. This allows for faster multi-CPU support and better processing speeds for large data objects in RAM (as opposed to the slower i840 bus and memory support).
As the Army is not simply pushing large amounts of memory around (such as for DVD or 3D gaming textures), but rather dealing with huge numbers of pieces of RAM, PC-133 (and its decendants) provide much better access times than RAMBUS does.
The Athlon's use of Digital's (now Compaq's) EV6 bus is a huge step in the right direction for processing large amounts of data and sharing that data between processors, memory and PCI cards.
Sure, the chips are expensive, but what Alpha processors need is marketing not necessarily pricing.
And 99% of computers are shipping with Intel processors? Guess you missed AMD having the majority of computer sales a couple months ago (at over 40%) or the iMac's surprising success.
I believe that the comment was very informative; if you followed the link to the CERT advisory he gave.
If you don't like people who answer with links, that's fine. That has nothing to do with moderation in most cases, and in this case, nothing at all because you weren't the one with the moderator points.
I'll reply to this probably seconds before you get moderated as a Troll, but that's ok. Open Source works just fine. It worked before people wanted an alternative to MS and it will work when MS isn't an issue any more. Open Source is a "Good Idea" in most cases, if not all. The entire Patent office is an Open Source system -- without the freedom to use the ideas. If you just want to be a Troll, no evidence will convince you; the point is, some of us disagree with good reason.
I think you missed the point -- remote execution of software is not an inherent ability of Windows NT 3.51 or 4.0 (both of which I've used extensively).
Period.
Yes, there is add-on software, but always an almost exact copy of the way Unix / X does it... making the Unix / X way secure because of imitation?
What I want to know is how it is that we know which parts of DNA are unused when we haven't even begun to understand how DNA _really works_. I'm talking at the level that it influences things. Someone looking at C code doesn't know that a computer works on a flow of timed binary signals... we can start to understand "the code" but until we know how it is interpreted/used by the system as a whole, we can't make passing judgements like "bloatedness".
Some people believe everything they read. Some people simply allude to those that agree with them. Others realise that a philisophical perspective is a much more in-depth thing than simply stating what is "fact" and what is "faith". You may believe there is a strict semantic range for each and that we can define what falls under which categories. Enjoy that belief... (oops, faith?:).
Allow me to quote the original poster without the short-form:
"I don't study information technology..."
This is a perfectly valid statement to position the user prior to their comments on Windows vs. Linux.
PS. How do you know they're English at all? They may be Russian trying to write English, young (perfectly valid) and/or just too lazy to use caps (or on a laptop or PDA where its hard). Get off it.
My position on business model patents has always been quite simple. You shouldn't be able to get them. At all. It's a process patent (how to get from here to there). It should be considered a trade secret by the company in the sense that they keep their mouths shut and don't have to tell anyone how they do it (except monopolies?). But if someone else figures it out, good for them.
Say I figure out how to mix a new drink that everyone loves at Christmas and call it "eggnog":-). I can serve it for years without others figuring out how to make it and make money on it until someone else smartens up (think KFC's secret recipe) or I can tell everyone... either way, my right.
I think the proof that ZIP codes are public is that they're created by a government agency. The government represents the people, and anything they do (with the exceptions of national secrets) are public information. ZIP codes are not national secrets, last time I checked at least. However, convincing the government to "repackage" the database in a downloadable format may be denied on the basis of how much it would cost them to do (millions of dollars of course;-) and how much money they're making "for" the public (the government) by doing it this way. You people do of course realise that there isn't some dichotomy between the government and the public, right? You -own- the government by virtue of being a voter. Please, feel free to tell them how you feel, politely.
RMS does, indeed, believe that most things should be open. He is not what one would call a personal privacy advocate. He wouldn't attack you for having your privacy (from what I've read of his thoughts), but he's not big on keeping everything you know and everything you have to yourself. He's not the world's biggest capitalist, that's for sure.:-)
I agree with him on many points; I think the world would be a better place if we could trust each other. Mind you, I believe in security; but I believe in it as a trust model, not as an "exclude everyone but..." model.
For the sake of being argumentative, having a _good_ argument is a good way to get a better grasp of things...
... many arguments don't help either person get a better grasp of things at all. You'll notice that RMS wasn't getting a better grasp of things, just reinforcing his point of view.
Everyone does of course realise that developing another protocol (of which there are at least three in development that I know of) will simply be another protocol? It won't be the take-over one, it will just add to the mess.
What we need are good clients using well-written libraries for each of these types of IM systems. This is more complicated than people realise, but still appropriate and possible.
... I agree with you thoroughly that those who've posted thus far are basically ignorant of the issues involved (do Slashdotters read the links anymore before posting?).
The bidding process needs to remain fair; and if we don't like the bidding system, then we need another -open- system. it is, after all, your tax money (as you pointed out).
Personally, I'm not very happy about how the Canadian government uses Lotus in most offices when Corel is down the street from the capital buildings practically...
I would have to agree that a boycott of this type is almost meaningless. The point is that even if Amazon were not guilty of stupid software patents, Intel, Microsoft, Transmeta and dozens of others would be.
What you said about a "rational approach to software patents" is also right on the money. I disagree with the shortsighted Slashdot mentality that usually says 'no' to all forms of software patent given that 'software should be free' (which I also disagree with). If I want to produce free software, that's great. If I don't, that's also my perrogative.
What needs doing is a proper peer-review of all high technology patents so that other companies and lobbies (like the FSF) can say "nope, we've done that before, see?" before the patent goes through. This already exists, yes, but in a passive form. An active body would be more appropriate. This would also, inevitably, raise the cost of applying for a patent, but that might not be a bad thing either.
I'm not talking just software patents either. I'm talking about the high-tech patents that are absolutely stupid that companies keep suing each other back and forth for (I love Intel 'trading' patent information with companies that sue them).
I think you've mentioned the key here. The solution is the use of specialised search engines. I find music with http://search.mp3.de, I find hacks with http://astalavista.box.sk, etc.
I look for most of my information with HotBot just because its advanced search option lets me really weed out the bad hits.
Slashdot Mirror
In Canada we have amazing food labelling laws, but we're pushing them to include whether food is "natural" or "genetically engineered". The problem isn't so much the labelling but the differentiation ...
... I've heard US congress people say that they'd push for better food labelling if that's what the US people wanted. Why don't you start asking for it?
If I go to the store and buy some spreadable cheese product, I get told on the package if it contains cheese or not. Americans don't. That scares me, at least.
You missed the point entirely, sorry.
The problem is not that the site "doesn't work" with Linux browsers -- that would be a browser problem -- it's that it checks what OS you're running and denies you access under anything but Windows/Mac.
There is no reason to check what OS the client is using and deny them access based on it.
And with today's emphasis on gay-rights, etc. you can't always be sure you're comfortable with someone of the same sex looking at you.
... (or upsetting).
That's not an anti-gay thing, that's just "person who could be attracted to you looking at you naked" is embarassing
This is old news. I don't remember when I first heard this; might have been summer, 1999. They were testing this technology at two major airports as I remember it.
;-)
What really bothers me is that there are now concealed weapons that can't be found with metal detectors (non-metalic guns and knives, for instance). What 'hackers' need to do is work out a way to properly secure airplanes the way they've been giving information on how to secure networks. Unlike network administrators, I think the average airport is actually concerned about security and would take suggestions if we put some good ones together.
We can't always just say "this is a breach of my privacy" when the other side is saying "it's that or getting hijacked!" We won't get any public support that way.
Lets throw around some real ideas on how to detect contraband, etc. without (excessively) invading peoples' privacy.
Note: I say 'excessively' because if you have a rod in your back and didn't want anyone to know, they'll find out if they're in line with you at the airport. This is pretty unavoidable. However, having to be "naked-ish" for the security guard isn't great.
Idea: if we used the same technology with an AI system that recognised non-human items and displayed those areas on the security screen? Open source of course
We're talking about large data-set crunching. This isn't data that'll fit in the cache, so we need to pull it into the CPU quickly, right? Are we assuming that large amounts of data will be processed sequientially or that they'll be accessing from various parts of RAM randomly (like most data processing solutions ... that aren't Video)?
... multithreading has to be accounted for here).
For the later, use SDRAM or DDRDRAM.
PS, I wouldn't mind if someone built a quick memory benchmark test to run as a user app and see how fast each memory system is for large dataset manipulations, WITH kernel services running (swap, cache, etc.
It would be a good idea to consider the AMD Athlon platform for these systems. I say this because of the much higher (200Mhz) external bandwidth and better bus handling. This allows for faster multi-CPU support and better processing speeds for large data objects in RAM (as opposed to the slower i840 bus and memory support).
As the Army is not simply pushing large amounts of memory around (such as for DVD or 3D gaming textures), but rather dealing with huge numbers of pieces of RAM, PC-133 (and its decendants) provide much better access times than RAMBUS does.
The Athlon's use of Digital's (now Compaq's) EV6 bus is a huge step in the right direction for processing large amounts of data and sharing that data between processors, memory and PCI cards.
Not available?
Sure, the chips are expensive, but what Alpha processors need is marketing not necessarily pricing.
And 99% of computers are shipping with Intel processors? Guess you missed AMD having the majority of computer sales a couple months ago (at over 40%) or the iMac's surprising success.
I believe that the comment was very informative; if you followed the link to the CERT advisory he gave.
If you don't like people who answer with links, that's fine. That has nothing to do with moderation in most cases, and in this case, nothing at all because you weren't the one with the moderator points.
I'll reply to this probably seconds before you get moderated as a Troll, but that's ok. Open Source works just fine. It worked before people wanted an alternative to MS and it will work when MS isn't an issue any more. Open Source is a "Good Idea" in most cases, if not all. The entire Patent office is an Open Source system -- without the freedom to use the ideas. If you just want to be a Troll, no evidence will convince you; the point is, some of us disagree with good reason.
I think you missed the point -- remote execution of software is not an inherent ability of Windows NT 3.51 or 4.0 (both of which I've used extensively).
... making the Unix / X way secure because of imitation?
Period.
Yes, there is add-on software, but always an almost exact copy of the way Unix / X does it
Sure, if you want to make a database of "trusted" people ...
What I want to know is how it is that we know which parts of DNA are unused when we haven't even begun to understand how DNA _really works_. I'm talking at the level that it influences things. Someone looking at C code doesn't know that a computer works on a flow of timed binary signals ... we can start to understand "the code" but until we know how it is interpreted/used by the system as a whole, we can't make passing judgements like "bloatedness".
Some people believe everything they read. Some people simply allude to those that agree with them. Others realise that a philisophical perspective is a much more in-depth thing than simply stating what is "fact" and what is "faith". You may believe there is a strict semantic range for each and that we can define what falls under which categories. Enjoy that belief ... (oops, faith? :).
Allow me to quote the original poster without the short-form:
..."
"I don't study information technology
This is a perfectly valid statement to position the user prior to their comments on Windows vs. Linux.
PS. How do you know they're English at all? They may be Russian trying to write English, young (perfectly valid) and/or just too lazy to use caps (or on a laptop or PDA where its hard). Get off it.
My position on business model patents has always been quite simple. You shouldn't be able to get them. At all. It's a process patent (how to get from here to there). It should be considered a trade secret by the company in the sense that they keep their mouths shut and don't have to tell anyone how they do it (except monopolies?). But if someone else figures it out, good for them.
:-). I can serve it for years without others figuring out how to make it and make money on it until someone else smartens up (think KFC's secret recipe) or I can tell everyone ... either way, my right.
...!
Say I figure out how to mix a new drink that everyone loves at Christmas and call it "eggnog"
No legal protection of the process itself
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/licen se-list.html
Funny.
I think the proof that ZIP codes are public is that they're created by a government agency. The government represents the people, and anything they do (with the exceptions of national secrets) are public information. ZIP codes are not national secrets, last time I checked at least. However, convincing the government to "repackage" the database in a downloadable format may be denied on the basis of how much it would cost them to do (millions of dollars of course ;-) and how much money they're making "for" the public (the government) by doing it this way. You people do of course realise that there isn't some dichotomy between the government and the public, right? You -own- the government by virtue of being a voter. Please, feel free to tell them how you feel, politely.
RMS does, indeed, believe that most things should be open. He is not what one would call a personal privacy advocate. He wouldn't attack you for having your privacy (from what I've read of his thoughts), but he's not big on keeping everything you know and everything you have to yourself. He's not the world's biggest capitalist, that's for sure. :-)
..." model.
I agree with him on many points; I think the world would be a better place if we could trust each other. Mind you, I believe in security; but I believe in it as a trust model, not as an "exclude everyone but
That's why I use programs like portsentry, etc.
For the sake of being argumentative, having a _good_ argument is a good way to get a better grasp of things ...
... many arguments don't help either person get a better grasp of things at all. You'll notice that RMS wasn't getting a better grasp of things, just reinforcing his point of view.
Everyone does of course realise that developing another protocol (of which there are at least three in development that I know of) will simply be another protocol? It won't be the take-over one, it will just add to the mess.
What we need are good clients using well-written libraries for each of these types of IM systems. This is more complicated than people realise, but still appropriate and possible.
Note: I'm biased as the maintainer of libicq.
Maybe, just maybe, to be completely unbiased, government agencies are supposed to ignore whether or not a company is on trial.
Even better: maybe, just maybe, until a trial is over, the party is innocent (anyone remember that part?)
Here's hoping your post gets up-moderated ...
...
;-)
... I agree with you thoroughly that those who've posted thus far are basically ignorant of the issues involved (do Slashdotters read the links anymore before posting?).
The bidding process needs to remain fair; and if we don't like the bidding system, then we need another -open- system. it is, after all, your tax money (as you pointed out).
Personally, I'm not very happy about how the Canadian government uses Lotus in most offices when Corel is down the street from the capital buildings practically
... ah well.
I would have to agree that a boycott of this type is almost meaningless. The point is that even if Amazon were not guilty of stupid software patents, Intel, Microsoft, Transmeta and dozens of others would be.
What you said about a "rational approach to software patents" is also right on the money. I disagree with the shortsighted Slashdot mentality that usually says 'no' to all forms of software patent given that 'software should be free' (which I also disagree with). If I want to produce free software, that's great. If I don't, that's also my perrogative.
What needs doing is a proper peer-review of all high technology patents so that other companies and lobbies (like the FSF) can say "nope, we've done that before, see?" before the patent goes through. This already exists, yes, but in a passive form. An active body would be more appropriate. This would also, inevitably, raise the cost of applying for a patent, but that might not be a bad thing either.
I'm not talking just software patents either. I'm talking about the high-tech patents that are absolutely stupid that companies keep suing each other back and forth for (I love Intel 'trading' patent information with companies that sue them).
I think you've mentioned the key here. The solution is the use of specialised search engines. I find music with http://search.mp3.de, I find hacks with http://astalavista.box.sk, etc.
I look for most of my information with HotBot just because its advanced search option lets me really weed out the bad hits.