I don't think Apple jumped the gun at all. Let's see - they could stay with the current chip and in a year-and-a-half go with a new chip, or switch to a new chip now. Hmm... hard decision...not!
Seriously, this is pretty much a no-brainer at the moment. They still retain the ability to use the new chip if (or when) it comes to market, and they have more flexibity in their offerings now and in the future.
Novell, through its CoolSolutions community-relations website, is conducting an online public survey to determine which Windows-only applications are most likely to keep Windows users from migrating to Linux. The company also wants to know which Windows-only apps would be most popular on Linux desktops if they were ported to Linux.
IOW, what keeps a Windows user from migrating, and what do they want to see ported the most? Irregardless of the Open Source versus Closed source battle, the fact is that most of these applications have been around longer than Linux, and have survived this long because they offer better features and ease of use. Right now, that isn't always the case for the Linux apps. It's getting a lot better, but it's uneven.
It's the same problem faced by many different groups. Yes, we'd like to switch, and yes, we can see the benefits. But, the applications we need are either not there, crude, or require programming skills to get them to work.
I'm currently working with a group that would love to start bringing Linux into their industry. Unfortunately, half the applications they need simply don't exist, and no one is even beginning to develop them. There are half-a-dozen or more different programs in Windows and Mac for each of the application functions they need, but not in Linux. Like it or not, and they don't, they're stuck.
Rather than getting defensive, and attacking the messenger, why don't we take it as a challenge? OK, they want this. Our current application sets for that purpose aren't up to their demands, so how do we get better and make it meet their demands? That's what will push Linux, not telling people they're stupid and ignorant for not rushing in!
You're thinking of Dicrocoelium dendriticum, the sheep liver fluke. The eggs get passed out in the feces, and are eaten by a snail. The snail sheds a second-stage larvae, which is eaten by an ant. The parasite causes the ant to become negatively geotropic - it climbs up onto the grass - and is eaten by the sheep, where it grows into an adult and starts the whole process over.
What he just proposed amounts to the banning of all human stem cell research in this country. This is a step back from even his previous allowance of certain stem cell lines.
Even more than that, the broad outlines if implemented specifically will outlaw virtually all human genetic research. Transgenic animals have enabled us to examine human disease conditions in detail, and methods of treatment.
This is typical pandering to the right-wing of his party, without consideration of either the ethical, legal, and even moral implications of his broad-based statement. I predict that over the next few weeks we'll see a host of officials on talk shows doing the "What he really meant was..."
I'm still reading through the trancript. I try not to watch it live - I get too annoyed with the scripted "standing ovation" moments.
I have to admit wondering about his new energy program - I mean, really, wasn't it over 30 years ago that yet another Republican president promised the same thing?
...the idea of a specially designed cellphone that could be converted into a full-fledged computer through a connection to a TV and keyboard.
I'm showing my age, but this sounds like an updated Timex/Sinclair computer! Maybe a Commodore Vic-20 or Commodore 64?:-) Ahh, the joys of computing by hooking it up to your TV so you could play a game, or try to write programs on the 40 character wide screen!
This all assumes that there are readily available televisions, along with cell networks, power supplies, and so on. Which aren't even universally available here in the US. I live in an area where cell service is not available - and won't be anytime soon. I used to live in an area where I knew a lot of people who didn't have a phone, or electricity. Not by choice, but because there were no lines. Yes, right here in the US, a 'developed' country.
I'm all for the idea of being able to provide computers to anyone who wants/needs one, but at the same time, it might be nice to see what infrastructure should be there - and cheaply - before this. "Great, I got this cool phone I can't recharge, can't call anywhere, and exactly how the am I supposed to hook it up to my non-existent TV? "
They are still around? They dont really fit into the "browser wars" at all.
Actually they do. Even though they're not the browser anymore, they're still involved - If you're using Bugzilla, that's a Netscape product - and it's in Firefox. Netscape is a Mozilla-based product right now, and Mozilla only exists because Netscape opened its source.
Netscape is a case study in how to fritter away a brand. It wasn't that long ago in real time that Netscape had THE browser and THE portal. Then they tried to release "do everything" browser packages, networking systems, and a whole slew of other things which they really botched. AOL buying them didn't help in the least, since AOL didn't have a clue as to what to do with them. About the only thing they did right was to release their code base, and that was more an act of desperation than anything else. It took a long time for Mozilla to straighten out the mess. Now it's finally looking much better, and FireFox and Thunderbird are what Netscape should have been.
I've worked in healthcare informatics myself, and I agree with much of what you say. A few quibbles though:
IMHO medical information privacy is more of a theoretical concern than a real-life concern.
No, it's a very real concern. Medical records contain a wealth of information that can be extremely damaging to a person. There's addresses, next-of-kin, insurance company/payment information, social security numbers and so on. If I want a one-stop shop for gathering information to to use for identity theft, medical records beat a credit card database every time.
Most people don't have much they would really care about hiding in their medical records.
That's your judgement, not necessarily that of the patients. It's their decision as to whether they want their medical information released, not yours. In my experience, physicians are the worst offenders when it comes to information security and patient confidentiality. I could get clerks, nurses, techs, and everyone else to understand it, but physicians were the group that blew it off.
You're right about healthcare IT being a mess. The problem is that most healthcare administrators and physicians don't understand IT or its needs, and IT doesn't understand the end-users' needs. Add in the fact that there is a stew of messaging standards (HL-7, X-12, DOM, and so on) and you have a nightmare for development.
Redmond WA (AP) Microsoft announced that it would drop its current overseas advertising slogan "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." after a successful trademark infringement suit filed by The Borg, who claimed that Microsoft's use of their trademarked phrase was ruining their brand, and subjecting them to ridicule by interstellar civilizations.
IOW, they're doing just what others have done. Do something that gets you attention and a load of cash, then proceed to try to spend that cash to do everything! The only question is whether they'll do the spectacular crash and burn that Netscape did, or succeed. Is there a line in Vegas on this?
That being said, most of the world is already using an always-on connection, and the vast majority of them manage just fine.
Umm... no. Most of the world is not already using an always on connection. Most of the world is lucky to be able to get an Internet connection. Most of the world doesn't even have a computer. Even in the US, there are some pretty sizable areas where a dial-up connection is the only available Internet access, unless you're willing to fork over a pretty sizable chunk of money for a satellite system or a dedicated T1 line.
It was hard enough to train users to use a computer in the first place, let alone a new OS. It's not that big a problem for the tech savvy - I've been through more OSs than I care to remember. It does cost, not just in training, but in temporarily reduced productivity until they become familiar with the new system's look.
One of the other things that will slow switching is the lack of, or slow, development of applications. I still keep in touch with one of my former industries, and as much as many people there would love to switch to Linux, and/or use various open source software, the reality for them is that the applications they need either don't exist, or are in "alpha", or aren't easy to implement or interface into existing frameworks. That is changing, but it's a very gradual process, and if they're lucky, they think it'll be five years before they can seriously move into OSS.
Another thing that will slow switching is something I've seen - the reluctance to move unless they have to. I can remember trying to persuade management where I used to work that it would be a really good idea to finally retire the DOS workstations - in 1999. I think they finally got around to doing that three years later.
The only thing that's surprising is that it took so long for a media outlet to catch on. This has been a long-developing problem.
Businesses tend to cut research and development departments first, particularly if the stock isn't performing according to 'expectations'. It's easier and cheaper to focus on what you have, and improvments of that, than to develop new. In the long-term, it's counterproductive, but long-term thinking isn't encouraged in most corporate environments today.
It's also tough to attract and keep people in the field. Working in a basic research lab usually equates to lousy pay and zero stability. You're paid way less than most people with equivalent expertise in other fields, and you basically go "grant-to-grant," and if a grant doesn't come through, you're out. If you want something more stable (or as stable as anything gets, these days), you move to a different field.
Then there's the setting of priorities. Companies will fund things that are likely show a quick result, not something that will take time and may not pan out. If there's political pressure, then various governmental agencies try to 'fill the gap' for the translataional development phase, but that pulls money out of basic research. Private groups try to fund basic research, but again, they have their constituency to worry about.
Add in the intellectual property concerns. You have universities and research labs worrying about patents and licensing fees. You have private companies not willing to pay for a "might be something".
The end result is that there isn't as much money for basic research, and where it is, is in specific areas, the government is trying to do development, and business is just cherry-picking. Researchers aren't allowed to communicate effectively, since that might compromise a patent or a license. This leads to a lot of holes in the process. It's really a mess, and there's no nice easy solution. I'd love to hear of one though!
If you're an author, put up some catchy story portions with cliff hangers and sell the rest of the book direct to users interested
It's already been done. Baen Books( http://www.baen.com/) started this about 5 years ago. They have a free library section, and a "read an excerpt (a couple of chapters) and buy" section." The idea is pretty much what you suggested.
I don't think that copyrights should disappear - the rights to be able to enjoy the fruits of your work, or at least control it for a time is a good one. You seem to be coming from the music side, but on most others, the funds come from the sales of the material. An author does not get paid for book signings, they get their money from the increased sales of their books because of book signings. What you're complaining about really seems to be abuses of the system by both industries and extensions they've lobbied legislatures to make.
They claim complete rewrites of the OS occured, but I'm willing to bet tons of code was copied-and-pasted in the process.
The WMF vulnerability is proof of that. Supposedly Win2K was a "from scratch" OS, which is why they were about 3 years late with it - according to MS at the time.
Now it seems that (gasp!) they lied! Who would have thought it? (The line starts to the right).
Other posters have covered the obvious things, but two issues that used to drive me nuts were a simple ones: Failure to update antivirus software; and how to plug in the keyboard/mouse/etc.
I'd have someone bring in a computer loaded with viruses, and after telling them that was their problem, they'd insist I couldn't possibly be right! After all, "I have McAfee on it!" Yes, they did, but it was the original install that came with the computer, and only several years out of date.
I also used to cringe when I'd get asked to "come out and hook up(or unhook) my computer." This always brought complaints about the bill, and really is something simple - where and how do you plug in the keyboard (and I've seen someone trying to screw it in), the mouse, printer, and speakers.
I think the key part of this article is dead on. That Mac users are assuming that they're secure because of their OS. I'm even seeing it here. "There hasn't been a virus for Mac OS X!" and so on.
The present "Security by obscurity" is not an excuse for not paying attention to security! I'm an "old geek," and I can remember people telling me back in the early '90's that they couldn't possibly have a virus, since they were the only person who used their computer. That was just before I found and cleaned an astonishing number of BSV's and file viruses off their computer. "Oh, the kids' were playing games with their friends!"
There's an old saying that holds true here: "When you assume, you make an ass out of U and me." Assuming you're secure just because you're running Mac OS, Linux, or even Amiga (yes, it's still out there!), without paying attention to security is a sure way to get bit - which is what is going to happen, sooner or later.
The reason Windows 9x is not vulnerable to a "Critical" attack vector is because an additional step exists in the Win9x platform: When not printing to a printer, applications will simply never process the SetAbortProc record. Although the vulnerable code does exist in the Win9x platform, all "Critical" attack vectors are blocked by this additional step.
Well, that explains (sort of) why they didn't feel obligated to update the 9x series, but it lacks a great deal of explanation as to why they would:
a. Keep what they knew could be a problem,
b. Make it even worse in their "new" edition.
I can see why they might have put it in in the first place, as a way to cancel printing, but what I still can't understand is why you'd extend to that extent.
While digital cameras may (and mostly are) replacing film in the consumer market, they still have a long ways to go before replacing film in all markets. Like it or not, digital still is a ways from matching the resolution of film, and there are still things that only film works well for.
Even beyond the "nostalgia" market, the other side is that film holds up better as a medium than digital. This isn't news. Remember that vinyl records are still around, and in many ways are still preferred as a medium by audiophiles and for long-term storage. I can still play an album from the 1950's, but will a disk with my photos on it still be readable in a decade? As I recall, we just had a nice long post about how long a CD-R or CD-R/W lasts.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think Apple jumped the gun at all. Let's see - they could stay with the current chip and in a year-and-a-half go with a new chip, or switch to a new chip now. Hmm... hard decision...not!
Seriously, this is pretty much a no-brainer at the moment. They still retain the ability to use the new chip if (or when) it comes to market, and they have more flexibity in their offerings now and in the future.
This was what Novell was doing in their survey:
Novell, through its CoolSolutions community-relations website, is conducting an online public survey to determine which Windows-only applications are most likely to keep Windows users from migrating to Linux. The company also wants to know which Windows-only apps would be most popular on Linux desktops if they were ported to Linux.
IOW, what keeps a Windows user from migrating, and what do they want to see ported the most? Irregardless of the Open Source versus Closed source battle, the fact is that most of these applications have been around longer than Linux, and have survived this long because they offer better features and ease of use. Right now, that isn't always the case for the Linux apps. It's getting a lot better, but it's uneven.
It's the same problem faced by many different groups. Yes, we'd like to switch, and yes, we can see the benefits. But, the applications we need are either not there, crude, or require programming skills to get them to work.
I'm currently working with a group that would love to start bringing Linux into their industry. Unfortunately, half the applications they need simply don't exist, and no one is even beginning to develop them. There are half-a-dozen or more different programs in Windows and Mac for each of the application functions they need, but not in Linux. Like it or not, and they don't, they're stuck.
Rather than getting defensive, and attacking the messenger, why don't we take it as a challenge? OK, they want this. Our current application sets for that purpose aren't up to their demands, so how do we get better and make it meet their demands? That's what will push Linux, not telling people they're stupid and ignorant for not rushing in!
You're thinking of Dicrocoelium dendriticum, the sheep liver fluke. The eggs get passed out in the feces, and are eaten by a snail. The snail sheds a second-stage larvae, which is eaten by an ant. The parasite causes the ant to become negatively geotropic - it climbs up onto the grass - and is eaten by the sheep, where it grows into an adult and starts the whole process over.
What he just proposed amounts to the banning of all human stem cell research in this country. This is a step back from even his previous allowance of certain stem cell lines.
Even more than that, the broad outlines if implemented specifically will outlaw virtually all human genetic research. Transgenic animals have enabled us to examine human disease conditions in detail, and methods of treatment.
This is typical pandering to the right-wing of his party, without consideration of either the ethical, legal, and even moral implications of his broad-based statement. I predict that over the next few weeks we'll see a host of officials on talk shows doing the "What he really meant was ..."
I'm still reading through the trancript. I try not to watch it live - I get too annoyed with the scripted "standing ovation" moments.
I have to admit wondering about his new energy program - I mean, really, wasn't it over 30 years ago that yet another Republican president promised the same thing?
I'm showing my age, but this sounds like an updated Timex/Sinclair computer! Maybe a Commodore Vic-20 or Commodore 64? :-) Ahh, the joys of computing by hooking it up to your TV so you could play a game, or try to write programs on the 40 character wide screen!
This all assumes that there are readily available televisions, along with cell networks, power supplies, and so on. Which aren't even universally available here in the US. I live in an area where cell service is not available - and won't be anytime soon. I used to live in an area where I knew a lot of people who didn't have a phone, or electricity. Not by choice, but because there were no lines. Yes, right here in the US, a 'developed' country.
I'm all for the idea of being able to provide computers to anyone who wants/needs one, but at the same time, it might be nice to see what infrastructure should be there - and cheaply - before this. "Great, I got this cool phone I can't recharge, can't call anywhere, and exactly how the am I supposed to hook it up to my non-existent TV? "
They are still around? They dont really fit into the "browser wars" at all.
Actually they do. Even though they're not the browser anymore, they're still involved - If you're using Bugzilla, that's a Netscape product - and it's in Firefox. Netscape is a Mozilla-based product right now, and Mozilla only exists because Netscape opened its source.
Netscape is a case study in how to fritter away a brand. It wasn't that long ago in real time that Netscape had THE browser and THE portal. Then they tried to release "do everything" browser packages, networking systems, and a whole slew of other things which they really botched. AOL buying them didn't help in the least, since AOL didn't have a clue as to what to do with them. About the only thing they did right was to release their code base, and that was more an act of desperation than anything else. It took a long time for Mozilla to straighten out the mess. Now it's finally looking much better, and FireFox and Thunderbird are what Netscape should have been.
I've worked in healthcare informatics myself, and I agree with much of what you say. A few quibbles though:
IMHO medical information privacy is more of a theoretical concern than a real-life concern.
No, it's a very real concern. Medical records contain a wealth of information that can be extremely damaging to a person. There's addresses, next-of-kin, insurance company/payment information, social security numbers and so on. If I want a one-stop shop for gathering information to to use for identity theft, medical records beat a credit card database every time.
Most people don't have much they would really care about hiding in their medical records.
That's your judgement, not necessarily that of the patients. It's their decision as to whether they want their medical information released, not yours. In my experience, physicians are the worst offenders when it comes to information security and patient confidentiality. I could get clerks, nurses, techs, and everyone else to understand it, but physicians were the group that blew it off.
You're right about healthcare IT being a mess. The problem is that most healthcare administrators and physicians don't understand IT or its needs, and IT doesn't understand the end-users' needs. Add in the fact that there is a stew of messaging standards (HL-7, X-12, DOM, and so on) and you have a nightmare for development.
I guess everyone missed the news a month ago:
Redmond WA (AP) Microsoft announced that it would drop its current overseas advertising slogan "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." after a successful trademark infringement suit filed by The Borg, who claimed that Microsoft's use of their trademarked phrase was ruining their brand, and subjecting them to ridicule by interstellar civilizations.
IOW, they're doing just what others have done. Do something that gets you attention and a load of cash, then proceed to try to spend that cash to do everything! The only question is whether they'll do the spectacular crash and burn that Netscape did, or succeed. Is there a line in Vegas on this?
That being said, most of the world is already using an always-on connection, and the vast majority of them manage just fine.
Umm... no. Most of the world is not already using an always on connection. Most of the world is lucky to be able to get an Internet connection. Most of the world doesn't even have a computer. Even in the US, there are some pretty sizable areas where a dial-up connection is the only available Internet access, unless you're willing to fork over a pretty sizable chunk of money for a satellite system or a dedicated T1 line.
It was hard enough to train users to use a computer in the first place, let alone a new OS. It's not that big a problem for the tech savvy - I've been through more OSs than I care to remember. It does cost, not just in training, but in temporarily reduced productivity until they become familiar with the new system's look.
One of the other things that will slow switching is the lack of, or slow, development of applications. I still keep in touch with one of my former industries, and as much as many people there would love to switch to Linux, and/or use various open source software, the reality for them is that the applications they need either don't exist, or are in "alpha", or aren't easy to implement or interface into existing frameworks. That is changing, but it's a very gradual process, and if they're lucky, they think it'll be five years before they can seriously move into OSS.
Another thing that will slow switching is something I've seen - the reluctance to move unless they have to. I can remember trying to persuade management where I used to work that it would be a really good idea to finally retire the DOS workstations - in 1999. I think they finally got around to doing that three years later.
The only thing that's surprising is that it took so long for a media outlet to catch on. This has been a long-developing problem.
Businesses tend to cut research and development departments first, particularly if the stock isn't performing according to 'expectations'. It's easier and cheaper to focus on what you have, and improvments of that, than to develop new. In the long-term, it's counterproductive, but long-term thinking isn't encouraged in most corporate environments today.
It's also tough to attract and keep people in the field. Working in a basic research lab usually equates to lousy pay and zero stability. You're paid way less than most people with equivalent expertise in other fields, and you basically go "grant-to-grant," and if a grant doesn't come through, you're out. If you want something more stable (or as stable as anything gets, these days), you move to a different field.
Then there's the setting of priorities. Companies will fund things that are likely show a quick result, not something that will take time and may not pan out. If there's political pressure, then various governmental agencies try to 'fill the gap' for the translataional development phase, but that pulls money out of basic research. Private groups try to fund basic research, but again, they have their constituency to worry about. Add in the intellectual property concerns. You have universities and research labs worrying about patents and licensing fees. You have private companies not willing to pay for a "might be something". The end result is that there isn't as much money for basic research, and where it is, is in specific areas, the government is trying to do development, and business is just cherry-picking. Researchers aren't allowed to communicate effectively, since that might compromise a patent or a license. This leads to a lot of holes in the process. It's really a mess, and there's no nice easy solution. I'd love to hear of one though!
If you're an author, put up some catchy story portions with cliff hangers and sell the rest of the book direct to users interested
It's already been done. Baen Books( http://www.baen.com/) started this about 5 years ago. They have a free library section, and a "read an excerpt (a couple of chapters) and buy" section." The idea is pretty much what you suggested.
I don't think that copyrights should disappear - the rights to be able to enjoy the fruits of your work, or at least control it for a time is a good one. You seem to be coming from the music side, but on most others, the funds come from the sales of the material. An author does not get paid for book signings, they get their money from the increased sales of their books because of book signings. What you're complaining about really seems to be abuses of the system by both industries and extensions they've lobbied legislatures to make.
They claim complete rewrites of the OS occured, but I'm willing to bet tons of code was copied-and-pasted in the process.
The WMF vulnerability is proof of that. Supposedly Win2K was a "from scratch" OS, which is why they were about 3 years late with it - according to MS at the time.
Now it seems that (gasp!) they lied! Who would have thought it? (The line starts to the right).
Other posters have covered the obvious things, but two issues that used to drive me nuts were a simple ones: Failure to update antivirus software; and how to plug in the keyboard/mouse/etc.
I'd have someone bring in a computer loaded with viruses, and after telling them that was their problem, they'd insist I couldn't possibly be right! After all, "I have McAfee on it!" Yes, they did, but it was the original install that came with the computer, and only several years out of date.
I also used to cringe when I'd get asked to "come out and hook up(or unhook) my computer." This always brought complaints about the bill, and really is something simple - where and how do you plug in the keyboard (and I've seen someone trying to screw it in), the mouse, printer, and speakers.
I think the key part of this article is dead on. That Mac users are assuming that they're secure because of their OS. I'm even seeing it here. "There hasn't been a virus for Mac OS X!" and so on.
The present "Security by obscurity" is not an excuse for not paying attention to security! I'm an "old geek," and I can remember people telling me back in the early '90's that they couldn't possibly have a virus, since they were the only person who used their computer. That was just before I found and cleaned an astonishing number of BSV's and file viruses off their computer. "Oh, the kids' were playing games with their friends!"
There's an old saying that holds true here: "When you assume, you make an ass out of U and me." Assuming you're secure just because you're running Mac OS, Linux, or even Amiga (yes, it's still out there!), without paying attention to security is a sure way to get bit - which is what is going to happen, sooner or later.
What I found interesting was this quote:
The reason Windows 9x is not vulnerable to a "Critical" attack vector is because an additional step exists in the Win9x platform: When not printing to a printer, applications will simply never process the SetAbortProc record. Although the vulnerable code does exist in the Win9x platform, all "Critical" attack vectors are blocked by this additional step.
Well, that explains (sort of) why they didn't feel obligated to update the 9x series, but it lacks a great deal of explanation as to why they would:
a. Keep what they knew could be a problem,
b. Make it even worse in their "new" edition.
I can see why they might have put it in in the first place, as a way to cancel printing, but what I still can't understand is why you'd extend to that extent.
Oh... yeah... it's Microsoft!
A simple use:
Windows Computer: Greetings, Mr. Gates. Would you like to play a game?
Gates: Yes, let's play Global Thermonuclear Warfare.
Windows Computer: Wouldn't you rather play a nice game of Solitaire?
While digital cameras may (and mostly are) replacing film in the consumer market, they still have a long ways to go before replacing film in all markets. Like it or not, digital still is a ways from matching the resolution of film, and there are still things that only film works well for.
Even beyond the "nostalgia" market, the other side is that film holds up better as a medium than digital. This isn't news. Remember that vinyl records are still around, and in many ways are still preferred as a medium by audiophiles and for long-term storage. I can still play an album from the 1950's, but will a disk with my photos on it still be readable in a decade? As I recall, we just had a nice long post about how long a CD-R or CD-R/W lasts.
Film isn't dead, it'll still have it's place.