Why sync with Exchance? Why emulate Microsoft on Microsoft's own turf? Why not sync and interact instead with Google's wide range of online services? Plus whoever's willing to publish API's and allow free access? What do you think Open Social will be good for? Or all the API's rolling around?
By definition, any mobile phone user has social interests, so all these online services are potentially interesting and useful to them. By contrast, only a subset of all mobile users are business users. And the social market has the ability to include business features, but it is not so the other way around.
So, which market do you think would be a better choice in the future? A closed market, payed access only, aimed at business users? Or an open API market, with plenty of free as well as payed services, lots of developers, which works for everybody, including business users?
That's how you make a killing, thinking long term and grand scale, on your own terms. Not by scrounging leftovers from Microsoft's Exchange market.
In the UK that's already been "taken care of". Hand over your encryption keys when asked by the police or face up to 5 years in jail.
The ironic bit is that the people this is theoretically aimed at (terrorists, paedophiles) would much rather take 5 years for not disclosing a key then whatever they were due for what they were really doing.
[..]it's only getting exposure because it's the first.
Allow me to be more cynical. I think it's only getting so much exposure because the security firm that reported it is trying to sell their antivirus product for the Mac. And what better time to try it than the launch of Leopard.
And they usually don't repeat the steps with which they burned themselves, over and over again, despite having it pointed out that this is what is causing the burns.
That's the difference between the engineer and the scientist. The engineer won't get burned twice. The scientist will repeat it as many times as needed to establish the pattern, examine the outcome and draw up a theory.
No one uses the internet for porn, so we're all safe, right?
We're not safe, we're codependant. If malware writers were truly evil they'd target porn sites. They day we have no more porn the modern society goes down. Hard drives and DVD's from those that carefully stashed them ahead of time will be worth their weight in gold. Well, moreso than they already are.
I think our days of blissful ignorance are drawing to a close. That said, I don't believe a Mac virus solution needs to be as overbearing and draconian as the ones I've seen for the PC (Symantec, Norton, etc.)
That's because PC antivirus systems are based on hopelessly outdated concepts: enumerating badness, blacklists, default permit and so on. Same goes for antispyware and so on.
But from what I've seen in Leopard, Mac engineers are already on a much better track. It will always be 1000 times easier to determine what is goodware on a computer than what is malware. That's where they're going with sandboxing and Mandatory Access Control and kudos to them.
I mean true freedom not some legally imposed cage that you deem large enough.
There's no such thing as "true freedom" in practical terms. All freedom is limited to boundaries you agree to, if you want to live in a society. I mean, you probably agree not to exercise your freedom to go around killing people, in exchange for a reasonable assurance that others won't do it either, right?
Lawyers are the means, not the cause. If you say "it's the lawyers' fault" you might as well be saying "it's our fault". We start lawsuits, lawyers just work in them. And it's such a great line of work because it's so many of them (lawsuits).
There's a difference between formats backed exclusively by commercial entities and a protocol embraced by the users' community. And that difference is that the protocol cannot be controlled.
I'm not sure what BT inc. is trying to do by closing the source, but I can tell you that whatever the changes, they'll be judged by the public on merit alone. If they are bad, they'll be ignored. If they're good they'll be reverse engineered and cloned. End of story.
To support this, look at other protocols out there that are in an equal state of "running wild": IRC, DirectConnect, to name just a couple of the ones used for P2P.
To say "we have the official client" or "tracker" or "protocol version" is just delusional. This isn't a market they can control, it's an open field where they are just one of the players. uTorrent is widely used now because it delivers and is small and fast. The moment it doesn't deliver, or words gets out that it spies on users, it will be dropped like a hot potato.
Wine has already started it's DX10 implementation, and as that progresses, it'll make linux "instantly" a superior platform for gaming when compared to XP.
Perhaps not XP, because it's hard to believe it will fall behind on gaming anytime soon (heck, XP is THE gaming OS for PC). But it would definitely take a swipe at Vista.
To know what window is front-most you have window colors. Focused windows are traditionally marked as such in a distinctive manner. Drop shadows are just eye candy.
How much use translucent windows are is debatable. Frankly, I don't find it very productive to squint at content half-covered by translucency and prefer alt-tab or tiling or workspaces. But to each his own.
At least a game containing Nazi's is a concrete topic, that touches on a very specific historical wound, a catastrophy you might say. Some countries take such events in their past very seriously, like the Germans with Nazism and the Holocaust, or Japan with the atomic bomb.
But what about banning games because they are "too violent" or "show naked ass"? Is it fine to ban those in the US?
He wasn't without the domain for very long, but just goes to show you that things like this are hard to make bulletproof.
"Not long"? It took Kremen 5 years to get the domain back and 10 to finally see Cohen in a US prison (for other reasons, granted) where he could no longer escape his dues.
If you're using a word processor to edit manuscripts, you get what you deserve. You should be using something like LyX, which is more rigurous and oriented towards allowing you to write content first and apply/change style later, at your convenience.
Version 3, which has been out for a little while, is really awesome. I'd say it's one of the most configurable and powerful graphical email clients out there. Too bad it's not that strong in groupware features as well.
To be frank, I never liked the mbox approach (one big file per folder). I much prefer the maildir approach (each message in its own file). It's cleaner and even if the mail application breaks the structure is still intuitive (there's the folders, there's the messages).
Who cares who did things first? Users don't. They care who does things right. That's the main thing Linux needs to take care of: usability and user-friendliness on the desktop, in applications as well as administration. A lot has been accomplished in this respect, but still more needs to be done. As long as things described in The Luxury of Ignorance still apply, Linux is not "there" yet.
Patent law has not "evolved". It has been maliciously twisted and distorted by corporate interests. That is a very different thing.
Ah, but it depends on the driving force, don't you think? The way patent law "evolved" and the way butterflies evolved can be arguably considered similar: there's a set of rules for what to do and what not to do, and the succesfull specimens are those that managed to follow all the rules. Just because behind one thing are greedy industries and behind the other is "nature", do we get to call one evolution and not the other? Or because in one case the rules are man-made and the other "natural"? Where's the difference, really? Does a sentient driving force exclude it from being called "evolution"?
I call it brute force attack either way. You try enough variants with enough resources and enough computing power and you keep what you get in the end that has managed to observe all the rules. Whether it's man or nature that does it, it the same to some extent.
Those are significantly larger crowds that I've ever seen at Linux user group meetings.
And it totally rules over the number of people who turn up at Windows user group meetings, I presume.
The "user group" phenomenon is rather inversely proportional with the popularity of the OS, methinks. When an OS becomes the norm there's no more need for evangelism and camaradery, there's just support groups, which can be done over the Internet just fine.
Our ed-sys dates back more than 100 years, with little to no paradigm/pedagogical change.
That, I believe, is the main fault, not lack of instruction in the technology of the day.
As a counter example, take Japan. One of the most gadget-filled societies. Yet they don't fill their classes with iPod's and whatnot. They don't use laptops and electronic interactive blackboards and so on. Good old paper and pen and an ordinary blackboard still works.
The key to a good basic education and a prepared individual is to train the mind, to recognize the skills and hone them, so it will cope with any challenge. Learning fixed sets of data by heart will not help in the real world. Being taught about today's technology will be no good tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
Why sync with Exchance? Why emulate Microsoft on Microsoft's own turf? Why not sync and interact instead with Google's wide range of online services? Plus whoever's willing to publish API's and allow free access? What do you think Open Social will be good for? Or all the API's rolling around?
By definition, any mobile phone user has social interests, so all these online services are potentially interesting and useful to them. By contrast, only a subset of all mobile users are business users. And the social market has the ability to include business features, but it is not so the other way around.
So, which market do you think would be a better choice in the future? A closed market, payed access only, aimed at business users? Or an open API market, with plenty of free as well as payed services, lots of developers, which works for everybody, including business users?
That's how you make a killing, thinking long term and grand scale, on your own terms. Not by scrounging leftovers from Microsoft's Exchange market.
In the UK that's already been "taken care of". Hand over your encryption keys when asked by the police or face up to 5 years in jail.
The ironic bit is that the people this is theoretically aimed at (terrorists, paedophiles) would much rather take 5 years for not disclosing a key then whatever they were due for what they were really doing.
But from what I've seen in Leopard, Mac engineers are already on a much better track. It will always be 1000 times easier to determine what is goodware on a computer than what is malware. That's where they're going with sandboxing and Mandatory Access Control and kudos to them.
OK so we know your particular definition of freedom. Just a few billions more to go. Or just millions, if you want to keep discussion within the US.
SHHH! Don't give them ideas, God damn it! Winter is coming, it is so NOT the moment to take up bicycle riding when I go to work, ok?
Lawyers are the means, not the cause. If you say "it's the lawyers' fault" you might as well be saying "it's our fault". We start lawsuits, lawyers just work in them. And it's such a great line of work because it's so many of them (lawsuits).
There's a difference between formats backed exclusively by commercial entities and a protocol embraced by the users' community. And that difference is that the protocol cannot be controlled.
I'm not sure what BT inc. is trying to do by closing the source, but I can tell you that whatever the changes, they'll be judged by the public on merit alone. If they are bad, they'll be ignored. If they're good they'll be reverse engineered and cloned. End of story.
To support this, look at other protocols out there that are in an equal state of "running wild": IRC, DirectConnect, to name just a couple of the ones used for P2P.
To say "we have the official client" or "tracker" or "protocol version" is just delusional. This isn't a market they can control, it's an open field where they are just one of the players. uTorrent is widely used now because it delivers and is small and fast. The moment it doesn't deliver, or words gets out that it spies on users, it will be dropped like a hot potato.
Stockholm syndrome.
To know what window is front-most you have window colors. Focused windows are traditionally marked as such in a distinctive manner. Drop shadows are just eye candy.
How much use translucent windows are is debatable. Frankly, I don't find it very productive to squint at content half-covered by translucency and prefer alt-tab or tiling or workspaces. But to each his own.
At least a game containing Nazi's is a concrete topic, that touches on a very specific historical wound, a catastrophy you might say. Some countries take such events in their past very seriously, like the Germans with Nazism and the Holocaust, or Japan with the atomic bomb.
But what about banning games because they are "too violent" or "show naked ass"? Is it fine to ban those in the US?
"Not long"? It took Kremen 5 years to get the domain back and 10 to finally see Cohen in a US prison (for other reasons, granted) where he could no longer escape his dues.
But don't you still love entertaining the thought? :)
If you're using a word processor to edit manuscripts, you get what you deserve. You should be using something like LyX, which is more rigurous and oriented towards allowing you to write content first and apply/change style later, at your convenience.
Just because you founded something it doesn't mean it will be yours to control forever.
Version 3, which has been out for a little while, is really awesome. I'd say it's one of the most configurable and powerful graphical email clients out there. Too bad it's not that strong in groupware features as well.
To be frank, I never liked the mbox approach (one big file per folder). I much prefer the maildir approach (each message in its own file). It's cleaner and even if the mail application breaks the structure is still intuitive (there's the folders, there's the messages).
Who cares who did things first? Users don't. They care who does things right. That's the main thing Linux needs to take care of: usability and user-friendliness on the desktop, in applications as well as administration. A lot has been accomplished in this respect, but still more needs to be done. As long as things described in The Luxury of Ignorance still apply, Linux is not "there" yet.
I call it brute force attack either way. You try enough variants with enough resources and enough computing power and you keep what you get in the end that has managed to observe all the rules. Whether it's man or nature that does it, it the same to some extent.
The "user group" phenomenon is rather inversely proportional with the popularity of the OS, methinks. When an OS becomes the norm there's no more need for evangelism and camaradery, there's just support groups, which can be done over the Internet just fine.
As a counter example, take Japan. One of the most gadget-filled societies. Yet they don't fill their classes with iPod's and whatnot. They don't use laptops and electronic interactive blackboards and so on. Good old paper and pen and an ordinary blackboard still works.
The key to a good basic education and a prepared individual is to train the mind, to recognize the skills and hone them, so it will cope with any challenge. Learning fixed sets of data by heart will not help in the real world. Being taught about today's technology will be no good tomorrow.