Testing virus definitions is somewhat straightforward. Aside from variations (which can still be detected in many cases), you're just looking for a pattern that you already have.
A policy approach is practically an AI problem. We can describe it in terms of patterns, but it should be very easy to find a loophole in the logic (or too many false positives). Most importantly, the problem frequently begs for intrinsic knowledge of a system - but the whole goal is to find a general solution to specific problems (hence "policy").
In true/. tradition, let me give a shoddy example. Consider the crime of murder. There are many ways to kill someone. If we want to detect this crime, we need to analyze one of two perspectives: the ability of a human to survive or the functions required for life (alternatively the presence of death). Looking for death and looking for a life-taking action are not too difficult (with exceptions). But the in-between, fuzzy areas where the subject might be dead but could be alive are very difficult.
We also have to identify the cause of the crime. Not to mention since this action is automated, we need a way to double check our data and ensure it hasn't been tampered with.
Frankly, signature matching is what I pay for in an AV client. The vast bulk of threats are known and preventable. Until I know more about the policy logic of a client, I cannot afford to bank on it.
As much as a "westerner" would laugh at this, for the Chinese this is probably appreciable (to a degree). Some context:
- China is host to a lot of conversative thinking. This includes suspicion of videogames, which are strongly associated with 1) Japan, 2)western excess, and 3)isolated youth. Korea and Japan have an obsession with games, which many Chinese find disconcerting.
- Youth, despite being routinely used for hard work, are considered important to the degree that they should stick with the familiy. A cultural gap, as societies (there's more than one in China) modernize, has appeared that includes new elements like pop culture and urbanization. Chinese parents are concerned about this new future for their children. It might also be shameful for a youth to be idle, disassociated with the family, and over-enthusiastic about videogames.
- The PRC has recently been pressed to provide more services and better responsiveness to popular worries. It started with lip service by Jintao and Jaibao, but the presence of strikes and media decentralization has forced the need for good press. This flimsy "service" is a gesture.
- HCI (human computer interaction) is new to many Chinese and the government's help in softening the introduction (including addressing addiction) may be seen as a good-will gesture. We don't like Big-Brother, but it's common for a government to assist in the spread of "new" technology and allay worries of adoption. Control can be comforting.
- Health is a very important concept in China. Often it is linked to a religious/philosophical notion of balance. Obviously, too much of anything like videogames will distort balance. Good familial relations also ties into this concept of balance. Until videogames become cross-generational and respected, they won't neatly harmonize with traditional views.
What I find truly interesting is the fact that two/.'s had essentially the same response pairing absurb violence and powerful intellect. Maybe they were just following the joke, but I wonder;)
This isn't really a flame, but the mods will decide won't they;)
"...but if the truth be known, almost nobody save developers and the zealots care about seeing the source."
That's being pedantic. Freedom isn't just a cause-effect phenomena. It's not a 1-1 relationship. The distributable source code is important to making software accountable, keeping software up-to-date, and improving the functionality and quality of other software. Not to mention lessening the risk that all software becomes a coercive tool. These are goals Free Software intends to work towards, not destinations it has reached.
"...almost nobody save developers and the zealots care about seeing the source."
And very few people in democratic countries care about seeing the laws their legislative bodies pass either. Does that mean that the passing of these laws in a public, elected assembly, into public record, is unimpotant? No.
Advanced democracies have mature legal systems, multi-branch governments, (somewhat) educated electorates, and elections. Free Software has communities of dedicated developers, many different groups invested in it (and contributing), experienced and novice programmers, and leaders who, largely, earn their place. Sure, we could still have kings and all software could be controlled by corporations. That would "work" too.
Freedom starts with a contract, but the contract is kept by people. It takes commitment from developers and users to make Free Software "work", no question. But MS wouldn't last very long without their employee's or users either. The huge difference between MS and Free Software is the contract. Which one really is in your best interest? Which one is in the best interest of the community?
You can place your money where you want. But I don't see how you can seperate the "Free" in Free Software from it's success in certain areas. The granting of rights in such licenses as the GPL is one of the reasons software is as advanced as it is today.
Re:where next ? the backstreet markets of course !
on
iTMS Launches in Japan
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
iTunes+iPod is a platform with serious momentum now. It is 1) popular, 2) affordable to the market (not cheap though), and 3) convenient.
Yes, there are cheaper - perhaps even better - alternatives. But when comparing Apple's offerings to street merchants (or even traditional vendors) you should include the selling power Apple has invested in and now wields. The iPod is the new packaging and iTunes is the fresh delivery method. Not revolutionary or superior, but desirable. People are willing to pay for desirable things, even if their "usefulness" or longevity or whatever is slim. There are whole industries (ex. fashion) based around this concept. (DRM isn't an issue for many users, as online sales of DRM'ed products show).
The RIAA and traditional music mediums froze themselves in their own business models. "Pirates" widened the technological alternative into mainstream. But Apple is riding the wave. Not forever, but certainly now.
Sometimes I have second thoughts too. But have you considered other sites where people post ratings? 99% of all eBay reviews read like they were written by a speed addict thanking his/her dealer. The average eBay review contains a series of ++++++ with an A+ in there somewhere. So it is entirely possible this is how people like to post.
It's a common human behavior to express positive things with catch-phrases and certain words. Further, the Internet has proven to me that many many people like being fans of companies. Perhaps this "utility" they recieve from being a fan is attached their ability to proclaim it, just like sports fans receive their utility by cheering. Oh yes, and some are borderline illiterate;)
I would assume normal human behavior before I move on to "editorial conspiracy." I mean, it is also possible that people (such as myself) are satisfied with Newegg. I say, "good" and some people say "Newegg Rock0z" or whatever. We could mean roughly the same thing.
This article doesn't seem to be about Clark. What Markoff appears to be saying is that the struggle corporations have with "protecting" copyrighted material is similar to the challenges repressive governments face with censorship. Tools such as Freenet challenge both. Advocates like Clark typically find themselves disagreeing with corporations and governments. Communication technology and individual liberty makes no distinction between information./.'s should already know this well.
You are thinking only in terms of one commodity (money) at a given instant between fixed buyers.
How about the commodity of a person's time over the course of years - dozens of projects, each producing a deliverable? Now, to make this more complicated, think about the effect if all these deliverables were themselves free (GPL, BSD) software.
Suddenly open source software can be worth more than a single buyer can appreciate. New buyers and sellers (as it were) enter the market, each contributing the net worth of the market. But what if the roles of buyers and sellers were transformed into the aggregate role of developers, each contributing back and forth to projects? A software-only exchange where no money directly trades hands. A business model that crosses the property lines between businesses? Sounds communist;)
Here's a chance to talk about a leftist crackpot idea;). Let us assume that is it my responsibility - and yours, everyone's - to build and maintain a society where the basic needs of every individual is met. How then do corporations fit into this picture?
One theory goes that corporations are simply the complications of this "inhumanity" where wealth naturally collects and distribution is thwarted in the name of the great distributive system itself: capitalism.
Consider, corporations are proxies which have the power of ownership - private property. Corporations have an advantage of efficiency when we consider large resources and complex tasks. This makes them akin to machines. As a body, any task is broken into smaller tasks and responsibility is spread into a chain. The weakest link defines the chain and thus the entire responsibility of this great machine can easily fail. As humans - remember our axiom - we place a huge amount of resources in corporations and therefore a large amount of our ability to fulfill our responsibility in these machines.
I think of Assimov's 3 laws of robotics - so well interwined and seemingly effective. By breaking one law, the illusion fails and all the laws are broken. But we would love to believe the illusion can be held up, so we repeat the laws to ourselves. We even have the machines repeat the laws. Ultimately, the machines, our proxy workers designed for efficiency, fail to assume our responsibility.
With a corporation, the general effect is that responsbility is far more difficult to handle than with a more direct ownership model. If you think about it, it's a ridiculous notion to believe that a corporation will have responsibility. Groups have jobs, incentive structures, and rules, but the central responsibility - which we assumed at the beginning - is not delegated evenly. It is not delegated at all, for the most part. How can you regulate humanity to humans? It certainly can't be "cost-effective".
We are thus back to punishing individuals, only this time we have made the task more complicated. Now corporations get in our way of responsibility, because they allow people to amass great wealth and power, all while hiding behind a corporate curtain. What's more, they allow us all to participate as consumers, share-holders, etc.
If the machine breaks the laws, are it's part's responsible? No, we attach responsibility to people. But people will always blame the machine - those who stand to gain from the machine's product will always place responsibility on the machine. Ironically, since we all own pieces of this great machine, these individuals are essentially blaming all of us. While citing the virtues of private property, a CEO may very well place the blame of some action on the organization as a whole - "inefficiences" or "the markets" or "competition". In effect, the CEO - a the model of centralized wealth in a capitalist system - is distributing the blame (responsibility-wise) while keeping the money. Thus the machine - and the hive of poorly coordinated machines that make an economy - really is a proxy, but for who's interests?
Honestly, if we actually take up the responsibility as outlined, I am not sure the answer to that question. Do we get a good trade for owning stock in a corporation? All I know is I'm not quiting my job just yet;)
The function phpinfo() can be disabled at build time or via directive in php.ini, httpd.conf, or.htaccess. This is not uncommon on production machines which don't "officially" support php. Always try print/echo before you give up.
Record companies are well aware that certain artists, orchestras, choirs, etc. draw far better sales than unknowns. This fact alone makes their point fairly mute. They gladly put out whole new recordings simply because $conductor's name is on it and charge a premium.
In addition, there are so many variables for "classical" music, you would have a hard time labeling it a commodity. Not to berate pop music, but there is simply more to something like a Beethoven symphony than the latest $band single.
For example, I have three copies of Handel's Messiah. One is a great recording in the style of Handel's time period (the choir's enunciation is extremely distinct, for example). Another is an Americanized version with fewer instruments, mellowed diction, and a very clear recording. The third one has strong diction, full accompaniment, lackluster performance, average recording quality, and a few modern twists (for example the soporano is a male).
Each of these recordings sounds incredibly different. Everything from the dynamics to the recording quality itself significantly add to the experience. And I'm not even an audiophile. I intentionally bought different interpretations of the music because I enjoy Handel's work through the ears of different artists.
The critical question (as both analogies draw) of intellectual property is: when does spending money equate to an investment the law is required to protect and enforce as physical property? Or perhaps, when should this relationship be made. Does the work of worker entitle them to this protection? Does the contract of a corporation entitle it's contract to this protection? As it stands now, the answer is sometimes yes. Certainly for major corporations. Naturally, a corporation has the most incentive to pursue a government-protected monopoly.
There has to be a line somewhere, because we can't afford to treat the entire world of human thought as copyright/patented/what-have-you. Basically all limitations we have placed on intellectual property correspond to physical limitations (like time, you need to go file something, publically protect, etc.). But these are inherently physical, which is a strange concept when we talk about things easily copied.
As with so many things, the problem boils down to whether or not you agree with:
- the ends justify the means
- the good of many outweighs the good of few
I do not believe that human life has a price, however, that is how the vast majority of our economy functions.
It is common practice for insurers, lawyers, CEO's of medical establishments, etc. to place a price on human life. Some of this is of necessity to do business or reach a resolution. We all support, basically, getting more money so the system is upheld by the majority.
It is also true that if certain individuals were no longer alive (or, alternatively, no longer did the crimes they do), we all would save money/resources and that money/resource would be put to constructive use. For example, a suicide bomber deprives families of members, workplaces of workers, and society of citizens. These types of dangers all factor into risk, which translates into where investment is placed and from where returns come.
So yes, the loss of a few criminals can benefit the economy. I know that sounds horrible, but technically it is true. I don't see anything wrong with identifying that fact. Nor do I have a good alternative.
That is not, however, a justification for the death penalty in this case. The use of the death penalty in cases of monetary damages essentially provides a perverse tool for the wealthy/powerful to rid themselves of the weak/oppressed. It is easy to write laws that get a CEO out of finance corruption charges, and even easier to simply avoid the charges altogether while keeping the CEO fat. It takes an incredible system that is fair to both the CEO and the poor hacker.
Basically what you are proposing is a division between the industrialized economies with higher living standards and the developing economies with large labor supply. Closing markets strategically will make things more equitable, hence free? This is a foreign idea to free trade or free market theory.
Closing a market to supply (or demand) makes it "non-free", correct? We are talking about liberal (to neoclassical) economics right?
The U.S. market is purchasing the labor of India, China, and Mexico. Following the supply and demand theory, lowering the supply of labor will raise the price of said labor. This will also have the effect of lowering demand. A higher price lowers demand. Sure demand is infinite, but the resources to fulfill it are not. There is excess capital in the margin to handle higher costs, but that will only go to the higher price if there is no alternative. Freezing the capital flows through the U.S. is impossible/insane, so there will be an alternative somewhere in the world for money to go. It may not be to U.S. labor.
With lower demand and higher prices, the U.S. market will not pay for more labor, it will pay for less. Even if demand were to stay constant, the resources behind it would be forced to buy less labor. So the job market will shrink or stagnate. The dollar will buy less labor in the U.S., hence less productivity per dollar spent on U.S. labor. The result is lost market output, which will mean fewer jobs in the U.S. Not to mention our stock investments and retirement may take a pounding.
"Any perceived shortage in the market for IT labor is illusory."
OK. Why then do companies hire staff if there is no demand for more labor? Wait...
"Washington is eager to fix shortages of labor..."
How about the market in general? Since we agree there is no shortage, I assume we can agree that lowering the price of a commodity is still desirable. Any market should seek a lower price of labor if the output is acceptable. Just like we want higher salaries or lower prices. Corporations would import labor freely if the government didn't have restrictions on immigration (i.e. supply controls). So if we want something more like a free trade, immigration restrictions should go. You propose the opposite solution.
So the shortage is not a shortage of labor, but a shortage of labor at the right price.
The "laws of economics" (which aren't to functional as laws) don't say labor has to be an American who wants a job, could be given a job, or should have a job with benefits x, y, and z. Hell, they don't even say labor has to be bought from "free" economies. Neither do American consumers, apparently. The U.S. consumer market has agreed to put low prices on labor in exchange for more goods.
Finally, contrasting the markets of Europe, Canada, or Japan as free vs. India, China, and Mexico is, respectively, naive. Considering the labor market alone (we could go all day talking about other commodity restrictions, WTO talks take years), the three industrialized countries mentioned have protectionist, expensive labor policies which are a kind of luxury tax on labor. Many of these were designed to tax the excess capital achieved through the efficiences of corporate machines and redistribute it back to the society in some way. Of course, Americans don't like paying for European society and the purchase of labor in China, India, etc. proves this. Americans don't even want to pay for some of their own labor.
I think it's the disapointment in seeing the Muppets not only blattently commercialized, but also out of character and poorly voiced. Dialogue and characters are so important, even when the actors are using puppets.
Beside, on/. people go nuts over Han Solo's penchant to shoot first. This is like changing him into a raving homosexual (not that I care about your sex life).
The term "to patent" is a nice way of saying "to monopolize by government coercion." I am not entirely opposed to the concept of patents, but we have to realize we are not only creating monopolies, but requiring the government further regulate the market.
This is only what the concept entails. In the marketplace, corporations typically own monopolies, not the inventors or creators. Further, patents can inter-relate (whether we want them to or not), forcing litigation and prolonged examination. This effort is expended, but rarely calculated by the lawmakers in the final equation. Corporations only need make a profit, the society has many more needs.
So that leaves us with at least four casualties:
1) many new monopolies 2) expanded government regulation 3) corporate control of large amounts of knowledge 4) expensive legal infrastructure
As time progresses, these costs can only increase.
This seems to penetrate the entire issue. I think this is the entire problem for casual gamers. The MMORPG model is tied to accumulation, and people like gaining things - levels, items, spells, etc. It's human nature (and particularly effective for industrialized societies). But, it is not necessarily fun, just addicting. We all have addictions, but MMORPG's are not everyone's.
This accumulation model is basically just a placeholder for real content. Multiplayer games have as their content, usually, the dynamic of interacting with other people. The trick is to create content which brings players into interaction. A new town or forest is only a means of fostering dynamic interaction. It may be content for some, but the minority.
Accumulation is actually counter-productive to human interaction (and I'm a capitalist, basically). It ultimately divides the haves and have-nots. An MMORPG needs a model where the accumulation system is secondary. Where interaction is what keeps people coming. FPS's have discovered this. Only the kiddies care about the killboard in CS - everyone else just plays with guns. Sure, there are different weapons, but that is only the beginning. CS uses the limited accumulation as a pretense for entertainment, not the climax (else you would be at the climax in ~10 minutes).
Forcing people to play together will not rectify the situation. Neither will making things take longer or breaking things into smaller time-units. These will only continue the model we have today - which really doesn't seem too interesting. What these games need are new ways to interact. FPS's, every few years, take a few steps this way. The MMORPG's need to find their own way, though.
Exactly! The low price of outsourced labor means two things:
1) The price of bribing is lowered (i.e. greater incentive to bribe outsourced labor than domestic).
2) It is more difficult to protect data in an overseas business. Just look at how data is protected in domestic markets (the U.S. is learning this, slowly).
Outsourcing has different cost structures which most businesses have probably not examined. Why? Because most outsourcing is about price and nothing more.
Remember how hardware used to be so much more expensive (transistor prices were magnitudes more expensive) in the 80's? It is now economical to distribute load throughout the system. Price/performance is favorable - we have so many extra cycles it makes sense to no longer centralize them. High bandwidth between systems are much in demand so this product addresses the lower end of that need.
Multiport (4+) gigabyte network traffic can generate significant load on a machine. This can be multiplied with bandwidth limitations between the CPU and card interface itself. A card integrated with the motherboard can still be hollering for the CPU quite often.
The real price advantage to this is probably in two cases: 1)small to midrange servers that you want to scale a bit more to delay upgrading and 2)small to midrange clusters where you really want the extra cycles. Ideally this can save you time and money by allowing you to scale the setup you already have.
I happen to agree with you. But let me play devil's advocate. Were I the RIAA, here would be my strategy in response to your suggestions:
1. "Stop suing your customer." I have millions of customers. When I sue just a few, I can settle out of court for more money than they will ever exchange with me in trade. As long as I don't sue everybody everywhere, I can gain money from claims and show people I mean business. Lawsuits are very common and few people pay attention to defending "pirates" and "thieves". A little moderation and this will not hit my bottom line.
2. "Stop forcing DRM on customers." Most customers do not know what DRM is. They buy what attracts them and sometimes it happens to have restrictions. As long as I can attract enough customers, I still make plenty of money. DRM helps clueless investors keep confidence in my assets and business empire. As long as my assets are valued and I can attract customers, I do not need customer trust. Further, I can always sell through an online outlet like iTunes and consumers will buy with the trust of the Apple brand and the attractiveness of the artist.
3. "Sell cheaper, and make up the difference on volume." Not until I have to will I cut my profit margins. If I can set the price, there is nothing in the world that will make me give that power up. Someone will have to take it from me.
"For a story book, instead of releasing beta of a pseudo-complete book, author should release it chapter by chapter..."
Charles Dickens released novels (like "A Tale of Two Cities") in a chapter-by-chapter format monthly or weekly. It's obvious to see how this diverted the story's chapters into episodes, often with cliffhangers at the end. Dickens was able to gauge public opinion and take reader feedback to adjust the story as needed, probably greatly contributing to his success.
For the hardware setup (scale) and general search solution, Google is very good. However, it is not for every problem.
Google does not have near the contextual capabilities of some (custom-fitted) search engines. At some point, you need automation and a level of reliability. You can't have a person looking at everything. And repeated searching, which we take for granted, is often necessary on the same dataset to garner sufficient results. Who says when we have found the right information?
Google does not provide complex taxonomy or a feedback loop mechanism (which can be very complicated - often patented or proprietary).
In the original PageRank thesis, it was made clear that context was entirely up to the user. When dealing with records (i.e., highly redundant data that must be cross-referenced extensively), Google falls flat.
Let me greatly over-simplify. Consider, "Joe Smith civilian" and "Joe Smith terrorist". Google will not distinguish the two Smith's. It will only distinguish the phrase in relation to the index. So - even if we have a link between Smith the terrorist and smith the civilian, we can still mix them up (unless we mark everything explicity). We need context (not just words in the same document, sentence, etc.), and as our search pattern hones in on matches (repeated, refined searching), we need better classification or we go in circles.
I agree, exploitation is tricky and I don't really expect major problems here. However, security concerns often parallel issues with stability/reliability.
Seeing as how drivers are often closed source - even some on Linux - we rely upon IP holders and their developers for both design and maintainance. Rarely do you get good service in both areas. Especially when drivers are "free" (i.e. you pay for the product and get a driver with it), maintainance is not popular among businesses unless it is a major piece of the profit model.
Further, drivers are often essential for functionality. Endusers do not get to be too picky about which driver they use - you either take it as is or don't use the product. There isn't a lot of competition for drivers, so quality suffers.
The presence of a small amount of moisture would probably affect silt more than sand. Significant moisture would have much more impact, but I'm not aware of that possibility here.
However, temperature is still very relevant to the actual granulars. Crystalline forms (like sand) shrink and expand based on temperatures. This isn't overt at the granular size because their structures have already been worn to some degree (the most obvious defects/weaknesses have been exploited).
Temperatures in arid regions (especially without a climate) are fairly extreme. Even with this stress on the granulars, they should be fairly resilient because of their previous weathering and because of their placement. Since Mars lacks water-influenced weathering, their sizes should be fairly non-uniform (relative to one another), so there should be some space between each grain for expansion.
The net result being that temperatures in this case probably only contribute to long, long-term issues. The short-term problem of being stuck cannot exploit these forces.
Slashdot Mirror
Testing virus definitions is somewhat straightforward. Aside from variations (which can still be detected in many cases), you're just looking for a pattern that you already have.
/. tradition, let me give a shoddy example. Consider the crime of murder. There are many ways to kill someone. If we want to detect this crime, we need to analyze one of two perspectives: the ability of a human to survive or the functions required for life (alternatively the presence of death). Looking for death and looking for a life-taking action are not too difficult (with exceptions). But the in-between, fuzzy areas where the subject might be dead but could be alive are very difficult.
A policy approach is practically an AI problem. We can describe it in terms of patterns, but it should be very easy to find a loophole in the logic (or too many false positives). Most importantly, the problem frequently begs for intrinsic knowledge of a system - but the whole goal is to find a general solution to specific problems (hence "policy").
In true
We also have to identify the cause of the crime. Not to mention since this action is automated, we need a way to double check our data and ensure it hasn't been tampered with.
Frankly, signature matching is what I pay for in an AV client. The vast bulk of threats are known and preventable. Until I know more about the policy logic of a client, I cannot afford to bank on it.
As much as a "westerner" would laugh at this, for the Chinese this is probably appreciable (to a degree). Some context:
- China is host to a lot of conversative thinking. This includes suspicion of videogames, which are strongly associated with 1) Japan, 2)western excess, and 3)isolated youth. Korea and Japan have an obsession with games, which many Chinese find disconcerting.
- Youth, despite being routinely used for hard work, are considered important to the degree that they should stick with the familiy. A cultural gap, as societies (there's more than one in China) modernize, has appeared that includes new elements like pop culture and urbanization. Chinese parents are concerned about this new future for their children. It might also be shameful for a youth to be idle, disassociated with the family, and over-enthusiastic about videogames.
- The PRC has recently been pressed to provide more services and better responsiveness to popular worries. It started with lip service by Jintao and Jaibao, but the presence of strikes and media decentralization has forced the need for good press. This flimsy "service" is a gesture.
- HCI (human computer interaction) is new to many Chinese and the government's help in softening the introduction (including addressing addiction) may be seen as a good-will gesture. We don't like Big-Brother, but it's common for a government to assist in the spread of "new" technology and allay worries of adoption. Control can be comforting.
- Health is a very important concept in China. Often it is linked to a religious/philosophical notion of balance. Obviously, too much of anything like videogames will distort balance. Good familial relations also ties into this concept of balance. Until videogames become cross-generational and respected, they won't neatly harmonize with traditional views.
What I find truly interesting is the fact that two /.'s had essentially the same response pairing absurb violence and powerful intellect. Maybe they were just following the joke, but I wonder ;)
This isn't really a flame, but the mods will decide won't they ;)
"...but if the truth be known, almost nobody save developers and the zealots care about seeing the source."
That's being pedantic. Freedom isn't just a cause-effect phenomena. It's not a 1-1 relationship. The distributable source code is important to making software accountable, keeping software up-to-date, and improving the functionality and quality of other software. Not to mention lessening the risk that all software becomes a coercive tool. These are goals Free Software intends to work towards, not destinations it has reached.
"...almost nobody save developers and the zealots care about seeing the source."
And very few people in democratic countries care about seeing the laws their legislative bodies pass either. Does that mean that the passing of these laws in a public, elected assembly, into public record, is unimpotant? No.
Advanced democracies have mature legal systems, multi-branch governments, (somewhat) educated electorates, and elections. Free Software has communities of dedicated developers, many different groups invested in it (and contributing), experienced and novice programmers, and leaders who, largely, earn their place. Sure, we could still have kings and all software could be controlled by corporations. That would "work" too.
Freedom starts with a contract, but the contract is kept by people. It takes commitment from developers and users to make Free Software "work", no question. But MS wouldn't last very long without their employee's or users either. The huge difference between MS and Free Software is the contract. Which one really is in your best interest? Which one is in the best interest of the community?
You can place your money where you want. But I don't see how you can seperate the "Free" in Free Software from it's success in certain areas. The granting of rights in such licenses as the GPL is one of the reasons software is as advanced as it is today.
iTunes+iPod is a platform with serious momentum now. It is 1) popular, 2) affordable to the market (not cheap though), and 3) convenient.
Yes, there are cheaper - perhaps even better - alternatives. But when comparing Apple's offerings to street merchants (or even traditional vendors) you should include the selling power Apple has invested in and now wields. The iPod is the new packaging and iTunes is the fresh delivery method. Not revolutionary or superior, but desirable. People are willing to pay for desirable things, even if their "usefulness" or longevity or whatever is slim. There are whole industries (ex. fashion) based around this concept. (DRM isn't an issue for many users, as online sales of DRM'ed products show).
The RIAA and traditional music mediums froze themselves in their own business models. "Pirates" widened the technological alternative into mainstream. But Apple is riding the wave. Not forever, but certainly now.
Sometimes I have second thoughts too. But have you considered other sites where people post ratings? 99% of all eBay reviews read like they were written by a speed addict thanking his/her dealer. The average eBay review contains a series of ++++++ with an A+ in there somewhere. So it is entirely possible this is how people like to post.
;)
It's a common human behavior to express positive things with catch-phrases and certain words. Further, the Internet has proven to me that many many people like being fans of companies. Perhaps this "utility" they recieve from being a fan is attached their ability to proclaim it, just like sports fans receive their utility by cheering. Oh yes, and some are borderline illiterate
I would assume normal human behavior before I move on to "editorial conspiracy." I mean, it is also possible that people (such as myself) are satisfied with Newegg. I say, "good" and some people say "Newegg Rock0z" or whatever. We could mean roughly the same thing.
This article doesn't seem to be about Clark. What Markoff appears to be saying is that the struggle corporations have with "protecting" copyrighted material is similar to the challenges repressive governments face with censorship. Tools such as Freenet challenge both. Advocates like Clark typically find themselves disagreeing with corporations and governments. Communication technology and individual liberty makes no distinction between information. /.'s should already know this well.
You are thinking only in terms of one commodity (money) at a given instant between fixed buyers.
;)
How about the commodity of a person's time over the course of years - dozens of projects, each producing a deliverable? Now, to make this more complicated, think about the effect if all these deliverables were themselves free (GPL, BSD) software.
Suddenly open source software can be worth more than a single buyer can appreciate. New buyers and sellers (as it were) enter the market, each contributing the net worth of the market. But what if the roles of buyers and sellers were transformed into the aggregate role of developers, each contributing back and forth to projects? A software-only exchange where no money directly trades hands. A business model that crosses the property lines between businesses? Sounds communist
Here's a chance to talk about a leftist crackpot idea ;). Let us assume that is it my responsibility - and yours, everyone's - to build and maintain a society where the basic needs of every individual is met. How then do corporations fit into this picture?
;)
One theory goes that corporations are simply the complications of this "inhumanity" where wealth naturally collects and distribution is thwarted in the name of the great distributive system itself: capitalism.
Consider, corporations are proxies which have the power of ownership - private property. Corporations have an advantage of efficiency when we consider large resources and complex tasks. This makes them akin to machines. As a body, any task is broken into smaller tasks and responsibility is spread into a chain. The weakest link defines the chain and thus the entire responsibility of this great machine can easily fail. As humans - remember our axiom - we place a huge amount of resources in corporations and therefore a large amount of our ability to fulfill our responsibility in these machines.
I think of Assimov's 3 laws of robotics - so well interwined and seemingly effective. By breaking one law, the illusion fails and all the laws are broken. But we would love to believe the illusion can be held up, so we repeat the laws to ourselves. We even have the machines repeat the laws. Ultimately, the machines, our proxy workers designed for efficiency, fail to assume our responsibility.
With a corporation, the general effect is that responsbility is far more difficult to handle than with a more direct ownership model. If you think about it, it's a ridiculous notion to believe that a corporation will have responsibility. Groups have jobs, incentive structures, and rules, but the central responsibility - which we assumed at the beginning - is not delegated evenly. It is not delegated at all, for the most part. How can you regulate humanity to humans? It certainly can't be "cost-effective".
We are thus back to punishing individuals, only this time we have made the task more complicated. Now corporations get in our way of responsibility, because they allow people to amass great wealth and power, all while hiding behind a corporate curtain. What's more, they allow us all to participate as consumers, share-holders, etc.
If the machine breaks the laws, are it's part's responsible? No, we attach responsibility to people. But people will always blame the machine - those who stand to gain from the machine's product will always place responsibility on the machine. Ironically, since we all own pieces of this great machine, these individuals are essentially blaming all of us. While citing the virtues of private property, a CEO may very well place the blame of some action on the organization as a whole - "inefficiences" or "the markets" or "competition". In effect, the CEO - a the model of centralized wealth in a capitalist system - is distributing the blame (responsibility-wise) while keeping the money. Thus the machine - and the hive of poorly coordinated machines that make an economy - really is a proxy, but for who's interests?
Honestly, if we actually take up the responsibility as outlined, I am not sure the answer to that question. Do we get a good trade for owning stock in a corporation? All I know is I'm not quiting my job just yet
The function phpinfo() can be disabled at build time or via directive in php.ini, httpd.conf, or .htaccess. This is not uncommon on production machines which don't "officially" support php. Always try print/echo before you give up.
Record companies are well aware that certain artists, orchestras, choirs, etc. draw far better sales than unknowns. This fact alone makes their point fairly mute. They gladly put out whole new recordings simply because $conductor's name is on it and charge a premium.
In addition, there are so many variables for "classical" music, you would have a hard time labeling it a commodity. Not to berate pop music, but there is simply more to something like a Beethoven symphony than the latest $band single.
For example, I have three copies of Handel's Messiah. One is a great recording in the style of Handel's time period (the choir's enunciation is extremely distinct, for example). Another is an Americanized version with fewer instruments, mellowed diction, and a very clear recording. The third one has strong diction, full accompaniment, lackluster performance, average recording quality, and a few modern twists (for example the soporano is a male).
Each of these recordings sounds incredibly different. Everything from the dynamics to the recording quality itself significantly add to the experience. And I'm not even an audiophile. I intentionally bought different interpretations of the music because I enjoy Handel's work through the ears of different artists.
I think I have read a hundred IP analogies on /.
The critical question (as both analogies draw) of intellectual property is: when does spending money equate to an investment the law is required to protect and enforce as physical property? Or perhaps, when should this relationship be made. Does the work of worker entitle them to this protection? Does the contract of a corporation entitle it's contract to this protection? As it stands now, the answer is sometimes yes. Certainly for major corporations. Naturally, a corporation has the most incentive to pursue a government-protected monopoly.
There has to be a line somewhere, because we can't afford to treat the entire world of human thought as copyright/patented/what-have-you. Basically all limitations we have placed on intellectual property correspond to physical limitations (like time, you need to go file something, publically protect, etc.). But these are inherently physical, which is a strange concept when we talk about things easily copied.
As with so many things, the problem boils down to whether or not you agree with:
- the ends justify the means
- the good of many outweighs the good of few
I do not believe that human life has a price, however, that is how the vast majority of our economy functions.
It is common practice for insurers, lawyers, CEO's of medical establishments, etc. to place a price on human life. Some of this is of necessity to do business or reach a resolution. We all support, basically, getting more money so the system is upheld by the majority.
It is also true that if certain individuals were no longer alive (or, alternatively, no longer did the crimes they do), we all would save money/resources and that money/resource would be put to constructive use. For example, a suicide bomber deprives families of members, workplaces of workers, and society of citizens. These types of dangers all factor into risk, which translates into where investment is placed and from where returns come.
So yes, the loss of a few criminals can benefit the economy. I know that sounds horrible, but technically it is true. I don't see anything wrong with identifying that fact. Nor do I have a good alternative.
That is not, however, a justification for the death penalty in this case. The use of the death penalty in cases of monetary damages essentially provides a perverse tool for the wealthy/powerful to rid themselves of the weak/oppressed. It is easy to write laws that get a CEO out of finance corruption charges, and even easier to simply avoid the charges altogether while keeping the CEO fat. It takes an incredible system that is fair to both the CEO and the poor hacker.
Basically what you are proposing is a division between the industrialized economies with higher living standards and the developing economies with large labor supply. Closing markets strategically will make things more equitable, hence free? This is a foreign idea to free trade or free market theory.
Closing a market to supply (or demand) makes it "non-free", correct? We are talking about liberal (to neoclassical) economics right?
The U.S. market is purchasing the labor of India, China, and Mexico. Following the supply and demand theory, lowering the supply of labor will raise the price of said labor. This will also have the effect of lowering demand. A higher price lowers demand. Sure demand is infinite, but the resources to fulfill it are not. There is excess capital in the margin to handle higher costs, but that will only go to the higher price if there is no alternative. Freezing the capital flows through the U.S. is impossible/insane, so there will be an alternative somewhere in the world for money to go. It may not be to U.S. labor.
With lower demand and higher prices, the U.S. market will not pay for more labor, it will pay for less. Even if demand were to stay constant, the resources behind it would be forced to buy less labor. So the job market will shrink or stagnate. The dollar will buy less labor in the U.S., hence less productivity per dollar spent on U.S. labor. The result is lost market output, which will mean fewer jobs in the U.S. Not to mention our stock investments and retirement may take a pounding.
"Any perceived shortage in the market for IT labor is illusory."
OK. Why then do companies hire staff if there is no demand for more labor? Wait...
"Washington is eager to fix shortages of labor..."
How about the market in general? Since we agree there is no shortage, I assume we can agree that lowering the price of a commodity is still desirable. Any market should seek a lower price of labor if the output is acceptable. Just like we want higher salaries or lower prices. Corporations would import labor freely if the government didn't have restrictions on immigration (i.e. supply controls). So if we want something more like a free trade, immigration restrictions should go. You propose the opposite solution.
So the shortage is not a shortage of labor, but a shortage of labor at the right price.
The "laws of economics" (which aren't to functional as laws) don't say labor has to be an American who wants a job, could be given a job, or should have a job with benefits x, y, and z. Hell, they don't even say labor has to be bought from "free" economies. Neither do American consumers, apparently. The U.S. consumer market has agreed to put low prices on labor in exchange for more goods.
Finally, contrasting the markets of Europe, Canada, or Japan as free vs. India, China, and Mexico is, respectively, naive. Considering the labor market alone (we could go all day talking about other commodity restrictions, WTO talks take years), the three industrialized countries mentioned have protectionist, expensive labor policies which are a kind of luxury tax on labor. Many of these were designed to tax the excess capital achieved through the efficiences of corporate machines and redistribute it back to the society in some way. Of course, Americans don't like paying for European society and the purchase of labor in China, India, etc. proves this. Americans don't even want to pay for some of their own labor.
I think it's the disapointment in seeing the Muppets not only blattently commercialized, but also out of character and poorly voiced. Dialogue and characters are so important, even when the actors are using puppets.
/. people go nuts over Han Solo's penchant to shoot first. This is like changing him into a raving homosexual (not that I care about your sex life).
Beside, on
Not to mention it is an near one of the most volcanically active regions of the world.
The term "to patent" is a nice way of saying "to monopolize by government coercion." I am not entirely opposed to the concept of patents, but we have to realize we are not only creating monopolies, but requiring the government further regulate the market.
This is only what the concept entails. In the marketplace, corporations typically own monopolies, not the inventors or creators. Further, patents can inter-relate (whether we want them to or not), forcing litigation and prolonged examination. This effort is expended, but rarely calculated by the lawmakers in the final equation. Corporations only need make a profit, the society has many more needs.
So that leaves us with at least four casualties:
1) many new monopolies
2) expanded government regulation
3) corporate control of large amounts of knowledge
4) expensive legal infrastructure
As time progresses, these costs can only increase.
"time -> better character"
This seems to penetrate the entire issue. I think this is the entire problem for casual gamers. The MMORPG model is tied to accumulation, and people like gaining things - levels, items, spells, etc. It's human nature (and particularly effective for industrialized societies). But, it is not necessarily fun, just addicting. We all have addictions, but MMORPG's are not everyone's.
This accumulation model is basically just a placeholder for real content. Multiplayer games have as their content, usually, the dynamic of interacting with other people. The trick is to create content which brings players into interaction. A new town or forest is only a means of fostering dynamic interaction. It may be content for some, but the minority.
Accumulation is actually counter-productive to human interaction (and I'm a capitalist, basically). It ultimately divides the haves and have-nots. An MMORPG needs a model where the accumulation system is secondary. Where interaction is what keeps people coming. FPS's have discovered this. Only the kiddies care about the killboard in CS - everyone else just plays with guns. Sure, there are different weapons, but that is only the beginning. CS uses the limited accumulation as a pretense for entertainment, not the climax (else you would be at the climax in ~10 minutes).
Forcing people to play together will not rectify the situation. Neither will making things take longer or breaking things into smaller time-units. These will only continue the model we have today - which really doesn't seem too interesting. What these games need are new ways to interact. FPS's, every few years, take a few steps this way. The MMORPG's need to find their own way, though.
Exactly! The low price of outsourced labor means two things:
1) The price of bribing is lowered (i.e. greater incentive to bribe outsourced labor than domestic).
2) It is more difficult to protect data in an overseas business. Just look at how data is protected in domestic markets (the U.S. is learning this, slowly).
Outsourcing has different cost structures which most businesses have probably not examined. Why? Because most outsourcing is about price and nothing more.
Remember how hardware used to be so much more expensive (transistor prices were magnitudes more expensive) in the 80's? It is now economical to distribute load throughout the system. Price/performance is favorable - we have so many extra cycles it makes sense to no longer centralize them. High bandwidth between systems are much in demand so this product addresses the lower end of that need.
Multiport (4+) gigabyte network traffic can generate significant load on a machine. This can be multiplied with bandwidth limitations between the CPU and card interface itself. A card integrated with the motherboard can still be hollering for the CPU quite often.
The real price advantage to this is probably in two cases: 1)small to midrange servers that you want to scale a bit more to delay upgrading and 2)small to midrange clusters where you really want the extra cycles. Ideally this can save you time and money by allowing you to scale the setup you already have.
I happen to agree with you. But let me play devil's advocate. Were I the RIAA, here would be my strategy in response to your suggestions:
1. "Stop suing your customer." I have millions of customers. When I sue just a few, I can settle out of court for more money than they will ever exchange with me in trade. As long as I don't sue everybody everywhere, I can gain money from claims and show people I mean business. Lawsuits are very common and few people pay attention to defending "pirates" and "thieves". A little moderation and this will not hit my bottom line.
2. "Stop forcing DRM on customers." Most customers do not know what DRM is. They buy what attracts them and sometimes it happens to have restrictions. As long as I can attract enough customers, I still make plenty of money. DRM helps clueless investors keep confidence in my assets and business empire. As long as my assets are valued and I can attract customers, I do not need customer trust. Further, I can always sell through an online outlet like iTunes and consumers will buy with the trust of the Apple brand and the attractiveness of the artist.
3. "Sell cheaper, and make up the difference on volume." Not until I have to will I cut my profit margins. If I can set the price, there is nothing in the world that will make me give that power up. Someone will have to take it from me.
"For a story book, instead of releasing beta of a pseudo-complete book, author should release it chapter by chapter..."
Charles Dickens released novels (like "A Tale of Two Cities") in a chapter-by-chapter format monthly or weekly. It's obvious to see how this diverted the story's chapters into episodes, often with cliffhangers at the end. Dickens was able to gauge public opinion and take reader feedback to adjust the story as needed, probably greatly contributing to his success.
For the hardware setup (scale) and general search solution, Google is very good. However, it is not for every problem.
Google does not have near the contextual capabilities of some (custom-fitted) search engines. At some point, you need automation and a level of reliability. You can't have a person looking at everything. And repeated searching, which we take for granted, is often necessary on the same dataset to garner sufficient results. Who says when we have found the right information?
Google does not provide complex taxonomy or a feedback loop mechanism (which can be very complicated - often patented or proprietary).
In the original PageRank thesis, it was made clear that context was entirely up to the user. When dealing with records (i.e., highly redundant data that must be cross-referenced extensively), Google falls flat.
Let me greatly over-simplify. Consider, "Joe Smith civilian" and "Joe Smith terrorist". Google will not distinguish the two Smith's. It will only distinguish the phrase in relation to the index. So - even if we have a link between Smith the terrorist and smith the civilian, we can still mix them up (unless we mark everything explicity). We need context (not just words in the same document, sentence, etc.), and as our search pattern hones in on matches (repeated, refined searching), we need better classification or we go in circles.
I agree, exploitation is tricky and I don't really expect major problems here. However, security concerns often parallel issues with stability/reliability.
Seeing as how drivers are often closed source - even some on Linux - we rely upon IP holders and their developers for both design and maintainance. Rarely do you get good service in both areas. Especially when drivers are "free" (i.e. you pay for the product and get a driver with it), maintainance is not popular among businesses unless it is a major piece of the profit model.
Further, drivers are often essential for functionality. Endusers do not get to be too picky about which driver they use - you either take it as is or don't use the product. There isn't a lot of competition for drivers, so quality suffers.
The presence of a small amount of moisture would probably affect silt more than sand. Significant moisture would have much more impact, but I'm not aware of that possibility here.
However, temperature is still very relevant to the actual granulars. Crystalline forms (like sand) shrink and expand based on temperatures. This isn't overt at the granular size because their structures have already been worn to some degree (the most obvious defects/weaknesses have been exploited).
Temperatures in arid regions (especially without a climate) are fairly extreme. Even with this stress on the granulars, they should be fairly resilient because of their previous weathering and because of their placement. Since Mars lacks water-influenced weathering, their sizes should be fairly non-uniform (relative to one another), so there should be some space between each grain for expansion.
The net result being that temperatures in this case probably only contribute to long, long-term issues. The short-term problem of being stuck cannot exploit these forces.