I am going out on a limb here to say that that was a very skillfully written summary. You took a couple of extra editorial leaps, but in general did a great job.
Disclaimer section:
IANAL (I am not a lawyer)
I DID read the XFree 4.4 License
I DID read the GPL
I DID read the ASL2.0
I am not disagreeing with Oct..30th
I am not fully agreeing either
Even XFree 4.4 license is not a "problem" per-say. They have some requirements that you tell people that they are using XFree in your documentation. That's it. That's the incompatability. So, that means that any piece of software that uses XFree should say so.
Because XFree doesn't inherantly use GPL software, they have the right to choose this license, freely.
Because of this many people will have to re-write some of their code if they want to compile it against NEW XFree libraries in binary form. (Still nothing needs to be changed for a source distribution model). So what's the big deal?
Yeah, if you are running an entire distribution, that would be a lot to change - once. Hell, it's really something that should have already been in there. Just as Internet Explorer - to THIS DAY - prominantly displays the fact that they use some of the code from NCSA Mosaic. So, you write something that links directly against XFree libraries to get what you need done? Say so!
From what I've read on/. and elsewhere, it seems. Many distributions are simply choosing not to use it YET because of the release-time restraints on labelling XFree use NOW. Some may find it easier to go with a different X platform. Some will not, but the labeling only serves to give each distribution pause to say, if we're going to change, now would be a good time to consider it.
Labelling is only decent, and it may help everyone understand the dependancies that programs have to each-other. Really, if all programs required this (in an "About Page" or "man page" form), then Linux would be a much easier place for me to live.
I am a primary Linux user and from my perspective, dependancy labelling would help out with dependancy hell.
I purchase machines in this way myself. This years bleeding edge back-end server is a really great desktop 5 years from now... but only if you've got a decent frame-buffer driver.
I have a SPARCServer 1000 in my basement - as a firewall, but if it had a decent frame-buffer, I'd use it as a desktop. Not willing to make that mistake again. Servers get decent video cards - so that when I buy them (or sell them) in a few years they will actually be worth something.
For 28 years, Nasa has published the magazine, Nasa Tech Briefs, dedicated to the commercialization of technologies originally paid for or comissioned by Nasa, and that makes NASA big money, while offsetting our tax costs for space exploration.
For those whom feel that everything Nasa does is automatically non-copyright, the problem is that very few things that NASA has ever done are NASA exclusive. Almost all research is done by a University under a technology sharing arrangement. The copyright is held by the University in these cases.
Yes and no. Almost every NASA endeavor is done by a UNIVERSITY or CORPORATION under contract from NASA. Very few technologies actually originated from NASA employees working alone.
Here's a mind bender. Say something like this does work, and everyone of less than median size becomes larger than median size. Wait... no... the median size will grow with the users of the product.
Will the new standard become a 12" median with 10" considered small? If suddenly everone is larger than 10" then size will become a cultural oddity no different than Chinese foot binding, African tribal scarring or American breast augmentation.
Anonymous post because you know that you're missing the point?
The whole idea of having assembly background is so you have an understanding of what your algorithms and the components within them are doing at the machine level. Just as it's not necessary to learn assembly for every CPU that you program for, as long as you have a good idea about the impact of printf (C, formatted print) as opposed to putc (C, unformatted output), then your understanding of what you put into your algorithm will be much greater than that of others.
Assembly experience reminds us that an efficient algorithm with inefficient components is no better than an inefficient algorithm with efficient components.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that we actually create a whole application in assembly, but learning how write assembly truely shows the complexity of seeminly simple operations. The painfull memory can serve to remind us of how much we're really making the CPU do for each operation we ask of it.
1) Because editorials are opinion pieces, they do not require the same research as news.
2) On the WEB, the top of the page, does not clearly state, "OPIONION" or "EDITORIAL" - but the author, Stephen Evans, is an editorial columnist.
Thus our complains will go to the bit-bucket, and those whom are mis-led to believe that Linux Zealots are responsible, will have no way of knowing the difference between a news story, and an editorial column.
You are correct in that this is not at all a search engine issue. This is entirely a paid advertising issue.
However, I do not feel that any system that deals with advertising should be forced to do a trademark lookup on requested 'keywords' when a dictionary lookup succeeds.
If you come to me requesting a keyword based ad on the word, "zoom", if I find the word in the dictionary, then I should not have to do a trademark search for anybody whom also trademarked the word "zoom" that is also in your industry. The dictionary check should be sufficient. Should I really have to check to see if Mazda actually trademarked the term, "zoom" before selling the keyword to Nissan? What about Nikkon/Kodak? It's still in the dictionary.
If there's room for gray area (isn't there always), then it's in the difference of Playboy and playmate. Playmate is both brand trademark and a word that is often used in a non-adult way. However, "playboy" as a trademark and a word, is always used to refer to one whom is active in the persuit of adult/mature activities. Much less ambiguous.
Of course, if the word you are asking for is not in the dictionary, I'm going to look for a trademark. Afterall, "Kodachrome" is NOT in my dictionary.
... I have been bitten by the same assumption, which is why I have gotten in the habit of hitting refresh just prior to posting (just to make sure someone hasn't already written exactly what I want to say).
Of course, that doesn't meant that someone isn't replying while I do the same.
Regardless - you'll notice that as people come into work, and check their home page (your home page too?) - then they see the article and check in. The bulk of slashdoters are from the US - and are doing the same as me.
Say I'm from a company that makes solar powered cars. If I wanted to prove my cars are just as fast as the other cars on the market, I would commission a study about how fast my car goes down-hill, with supplimental study funds for flat surfaces. - Go ahead write the report -...
What? You want funds for an uphill test, er, I really can't afford that. Just write the report without the uphill tests.
More lobbyists are paid to make sure that new laws do not get created than there are lobbyists requesting more laws. Whether this helps or hinders one's self depends on which organization is trying to prevent a new law.
Status Quo can be a good thing too. How many first year senators jump in and start drafting a law that is not well thought out, simply because they ran on a promise to do so. How often does one of those laws actually get to the sentate floor? (very rare)
Before a new law (such as CAN-SPAM or the Unsolicited FAX law) reaches the floor of the sentate, it has been touched and altered by 5 to 20 different points of view. Each one having a reason to "lessen the weight" of a law, or to "narrow the definition" of a governing structure act. Yet if this didn't happen, then some very poorly written laws would be passed through... due to public pressure.
The last time a poorly conceived act was fast-tracked to a vote - we got the Department of Homeland Security. Again, a poorly thought out act that never went through the dietary process that most laws get. Which is why so much falls under the HUGE umbrella of homeland security. This was not deeply considered or debated. Sure there were vocal opponents - but little actual discussion.
Slow to respond? Yes, I fully agree, but too quick to respond makes for some very silly acts of congress.
The complexity of the government is specifically meant to hinder the creation of new laws. Yet, in times of panic, everyone feels that something 'must be done'. So from the reader to this writer, to everyone in between, these times we should be reflecting on the best course of action are often the times in which action is simply taken with little thought to the long-term consequences.
So, many of us whom are highly effected by Unsolicited Commerial Email (UCE), look at CAN-SPAM and say that it doesn't go far enough - but without the limits it has, there are eventual scenarios that could make things much worse.
Why? ... Because the elected officials whom collaborated to put the law up for a vote are sure that someone else will act in a conspiracy to over-ride the effectiveness of the law that was written. Because deep down even those whom are part of the power structure are still just individuals whom think that they are alone, standing up against the tide of "evil".
Now I'll get off my soap box, and put my tin-foil hat back on. And if you've gotten this far, thanks for reading!
According to this
story, from 2001, a blue tint varient of the same was available for $100 per square foot (or about 5 x the price of regular windows) -- of course this particular varient is white instead of blue, and with the Anderson Windows label will probably cost 10 x what normal windows cost.
This link describes an Ice Cream parlor in Florida that has a clear glass bathroom door, activated to opaque by the lock. According to this source they cost $15,000 installed.
Don't worry -- your ISP doesn't allow it, and sooner or later they'll cut you off. If you want resellable, business-class bandwidth - then you have to pay business class prices.
Pointing a wireless can to your buddies house is one thing, reselling to all your neighbors is completely different.
streaming media... FROM RoadRunner's own home page. It's not very explicit, but the commerical describes the streaming media available to subscribers from road runner's own servers. Doesn't cost them back-end bandwidth to do that.
You are forgetting the Pareto Principle - it says that 80 percent of wealth comes from 20% of the people. But can (and has) been expanded to many, many situations. The top 20% of the users likely make up 80% of all bandwidth usage.
Of course, I'm not aware of a study on Pareto in relation to ISP bandwidth, but I'd gamble it applies.
Point being, if you do start shaving off the top percentage, you will get an inproportionate benefit.
Tools aren't necessarily equivelent to an O.S. - how about helpdesk software, is that already running on Linux? What about customer service, customer relationship management - Email infrastructure. There are a lot of "tools" that companies have to use.
The good news here is that since IBM (along with the rest of the world) has been pushing J2EE solutions for so long, many of these tools may already be web based. That would make ALL the difference my friends. J2EE web based apps ARE the MS killer - simply because EVERYONE has dumped the 'it must be installed locally on a Win32 box' mentality.
Last part is a bit of an irony - but Microsoft has pushed.NET so hard, it's made a lot of companies take a serious look at J2EE - simply because Microsoft has said the letters SO MANY TIMES.
I worked at a phone company called US-West about 5 years ago, and they had over 1600 desktops running Linux as primary... way back then. They used Citrix servers to get to that "compatible stuff"... well, MS Office. It certainly wasn't all desktops but it was certainly a nice chunk.
IBM isn't the first to take Linux seriously as a cost effective option for productivity.
Having used NextSTEP 3.3 on some very high powered Pentium II systems (least at the time they were) - they were buitlt to tri-boot Windows 2000, RedHat 6.2 and NextSTEP. NextSTEP was a DOG of an OS - but it certainly was pretty looking.
HOWEVER
I think the OSX display choice was the best thing Apple could have done to support their previous code-base as well as upgrade what they have. Remember that a big reason for OSX was to keep binary compat with the "old world" code base. This is less of a concern as we round 10.3, but was a serious consideration in 10.0.
If I were an accountant, and I/sometimes/ worked out of my home - what difference here? I really do believe the "home" analogy is a good one.
I have financial information for several family members in my home. And the security of my home is a concern to everyone in my family (for many reasons). Does this mean that someone can search for a hide-a-key, and threaten to use one if found?
The fact that some people bring their work home, does not mean that they no longer are in a home.
Several things I'd like to point out on this post.
Best Buy's Web Servers were being threated, but they are public servers. So, if I invite you into my house - it is quite likely that you may notice a security problem that you otherwise may not have found out about from outside. Seeing that flaw from being in my house is not illegal by any means, you were invited past my threshold, and you can now observe the inside of my doorway.
The difference here is that this person is poking and prodding around the outside of the house looking for other ways in. To do so, to a house, you must first leave. If he found another entrance, and entered through the bathroom window - then he clearly wasn't invited in. So at that point, he has done something illegal.
Regardless of posts saying that the "house" thing doesn't apply to networks, it really does. Basically, if in the return of a regular web request (where I'm going to a published page, and following links), I stumble onto a page of system passwords - I have done nothing wrong in FINDING that problem. Even so, if I use or even threaten to use this knowlege - I am again doing something wrong.
Same goes for a hide-a-key. If I find a hide-a-key on the path leading to your front door (where I am expected to be able to go and subsequently ask permission to enter) - there's nothing wrong with my finding the hide-a-key, but it is fully illegal for me to threaten you with entry.
In the end - this guy was doing something illegal, regardless of whether the actions he took to find that knowledge were illegal or not. Extortion and Blackmail are clearly not allowed.
Finally... not that I'm a conspiratist - but I fully believe that there are exploitable bugs in pretty much any mail system. That could allow the extraction of the reader's IP address. The best part - the headers of the original extortion request would tell the FBI exactly what type of bug or exploit to look for. Here the tables are turned though. They could then be breaking in on this user -- and if it was done the wrong way -- if they tricked his computer to give away the IP address without using a standard web-bug, or other similar - well known technology, then they would have had to get a search warrent for this user's computer before doing so. It's not clear from the Star Tribune story that they did have all necessary search warrents. So this may be a loophole for this guy's defence lawyer to walk through. I'm quite curious to see how this turns out.
Slashdot Mirror
I am going out on a limb here to say that that was a very skillfully written summary. You took a couple of extra editorial leaps, but in general did a great job.
IANAL (I am not a lawyer)
I DID read the XFree 4.4 License
I DID read the GPL
I DID read the ASL2.0
I am not disagreeing with Oct..30th
I am not fully agreeing either
Even XFree 4.4 license is not a "problem" per-say. They have some requirements that you tell people that they are using XFree in your documentation. That's it. That's the incompatability. So, that means that any piece of software that uses XFree should say so.
Because XFree doesn't inherantly use GPL software, they have the right to choose this license, freely.
Because of this many people will have to re-write some of their code if they want to compile it against NEW XFree libraries in binary form. (Still nothing needs to be changed for a source distribution model). So what's the big deal?
Yeah, if you are running an entire distribution, that would be a lot to change - once. Hell, it's really something that should have already been in there. Just as Internet Explorer - to THIS DAY - prominantly displays the fact that they use some of the code from NCSA Mosaic. So, you write something that links directly against XFree libraries to get what you need done? Say so!
From what I've read on /. and elsewhere, it seems. Many distributions are simply choosing not to use it YET because of the release-time restraints on labelling XFree use NOW. Some may find it easier to go with a different X platform. Some will not, but the labeling only serves to give each distribution pause to say, if we're going to change, now would be a good time to consider it.
Labelling is only decent, and it may help everyone understand the dependancies that programs have to each-other. Really, if all programs required this (in an "About Page" or "man page" form), then Linux would be a much easier place for me to live.
I am a primary Linux user and from my perspective, dependancy labelling would help out with dependancy hell.
I purchase machines in this way myself. This years bleeding edge back-end server is a really great desktop 5 years from now... but only if you've got a decent frame-buffer driver. I have a SPARCServer 1000 in my basement - as a firewall, but if it had a decent frame-buffer, I'd use it as a desktop. Not willing to make that mistake again. Servers get decent video cards - so that when I buy them (or sell them) in a few years they will actually be worth something.
For those whom feel that everything Nasa does is automatically non-copyright, the problem is that very few things that NASA has ever done are NASA exclusive. Almost all research is done by a University under a technology sharing arrangement. The copyright is held by the University in these cases.
Yes and no. Almost every NASA endeavor is done by a UNIVERSITY or CORPORATION under contract from NASA. Very few technologies actually originated from NASA employees working alone.
Will the new standard become a 12" median with 10" considered small? If suddenly everone is larger than 10" then size will become a cultural oddity no different than Chinese foot binding, African tribal scarring or American breast augmentation.
The whole idea of having assembly background is so you have an understanding of what your algorithms and the components within them are doing at the machine level. Just as it's not necessary to learn assembly for every CPU that you program for, as long as you have a good idea about the impact of printf (C, formatted print) as opposed to putc (C, unformatted output), then your understanding of what you put into your algorithm will be much greater than that of others.
Assembly experience reminds us that an efficient algorithm with inefficient components is no better than an inefficient algorithm with efficient components.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that we actually create a whole application in assembly, but learning how write assembly truely shows the complexity of seeminly simple operations. The painfull memory can serve to remind us of how much we're really making the CPU do for each operation we ask of it.
2) On the WEB, the top of the page, does not clearly state, "OPIONION" or "EDITORIAL" - but the author, Stephen Evans, is an editorial columnist.
Thus our complains will go to the bit-bucket, and those whom are mis-led to believe that Linux Zealots are responsible, will have no way of knowing the difference between a news story, and an editorial column.
However, I do not feel that any system that deals with advertising should be forced to do a trademark lookup on requested 'keywords' when a dictionary lookup succeeds.
If you come to me requesting a keyword based ad on the word, "zoom", if I find the word in the dictionary, then I should not have to do a trademark search for anybody whom also trademarked the word "zoom" that is also in your industry. The dictionary check should be sufficient. Should I really have to check to see if Mazda actually trademarked the term, "zoom" before selling the keyword to Nissan? What about Nikkon/Kodak? It's still in the dictionary.
If there's room for gray area (isn't there always), then it's in the difference of Playboy and playmate. Playmate is both brand trademark and a word that is often used in a non-adult way. However, "playboy" as a trademark and a word, is always used to refer to one whom is active in the persuit of adult/mature activities. Much less ambiguous.
Of course, if the word you are asking for is not in the dictionary, I'm going to look for a trademark. Afterall, "Kodachrome" is NOT in my dictionary.
... I have been bitten by the same assumption, which is why I have gotten in the habit of hitting refresh just prior to posting (just to make sure someone hasn't already written exactly what I want to say). Of course, that doesn't meant that someone isn't replying while I do the same. Regardless - you'll notice that as people come into work, and check their home page (your home page too?) - then they see the article and check in. The bulk of slashdoters are from the US - and are doing the same as me.
What? You want funds for an uphill test, er, I really can't afford that. Just write the report without the uphill tests.
Status Quo can be a good thing too. How many first year senators jump in and start drafting a law that is not well thought out, simply because they ran on a promise to do so. How often does one of those laws actually get to the sentate floor? (very rare)
Before a new law (such as CAN-SPAM or the Unsolicited FAX law) reaches the floor of the sentate, it has been touched and altered by 5 to 20 different points of view. Each one having a reason to "lessen the weight" of a law, or to "narrow the definition" of a governing structure act. Yet if this didn't happen, then some very poorly written laws would be passed through ... due to public pressure.
The last time a poorly conceived act was fast-tracked to a vote - we got the Department of Homeland Security. Again, a poorly thought out act that never went through the dietary process that most laws get. Which is why so much falls under the HUGE umbrella of homeland security. This was not deeply considered or debated. Sure there were vocal opponents - but little actual discussion.
Slow to respond? Yes, I fully agree, but too quick to respond makes for some very silly acts of congress.
The complexity of the government is specifically meant to hinder the creation of new laws. Yet, in times of panic, everyone feels that something 'must be done'. So from the reader to this writer, to everyone in between, these times we should be reflecting on the best course of action are often the times in which action is simply taken with little thought to the long-term consequences.
So, many of us whom are highly effected by Unsolicited Commerial Email (UCE), look at CAN-SPAM and say that it doesn't go far enough - but without the limits it has, there are eventual scenarios that could make things much worse.
Why?
... Because the elected officials whom collaborated to put the law up for a vote are sure that someone else will act in a conspiracy to over-ride the effectiveness of the law that was written. Because deep down even those whom are part of the power structure are still just individuals whom think that they are alone, standing up against the tide of "evil".
Now I'll get off my soap box, and put my tin-foil hat back on. And if you've gotten this far, thanks for reading!
I inadvertantly answered thie up here.
This link describes an Ice Cream parlor in Florida that has a clear glass bathroom door, activated to opaque by the lock. According to this source they cost $15,000 installed.
56K Internet connections using Frame Relay have been around for MANY, MANY years. At no point did anybody say it was a MODEM.
Pointing a wireless can to your buddies house is one thing, reselling to all your neighbors is completely different.
The internet was designed to be a peer-to-peer place, and this sort of mentality plays into that idea.
streaming media... FROM RoadRunner's own home page. It's not very explicit, but the commerical describes the streaming media available to subscribers from road runner's own servers. Doesn't cost them back-end bandwidth to do that.
Of course, I'm not aware of a study on Pareto in relation to ISP bandwidth, but I'd gamble it applies.
Point being, if you do start shaving off the top percentage, you will get an inproportionate benefit.
The good news here is that since IBM (along with the rest of the world) has been pushing J2EE solutions for so long, many of these tools may already be web based. That would make ALL the difference my friends. J2EE web based apps ARE the MS killer - simply because EVERYONE has dumped the 'it must be installed locally on a Win32 box' mentality.
Last part is a bit of an irony - but Microsoft has pushed .NET so hard, it's made a lot of companies take a serious look at J2EE - simply because Microsoft has said the letters SO MANY TIMES.
I worked at a phone company called US-West about 5 years ago, and they had over 1600 desktops running Linux as primary ... way back then. They used Citrix servers to get to that "compatible stuff"... well, MS Office. It certainly wasn't all desktops but it was certainly a nice chunk.
IBM isn't the first to take Linux seriously as a cost effective option for productivity.
HOWEVER
I think the OSX display choice was the best thing Apple could have done to support their previous code-base as well as upgrade what they have. Remember that a big reason for OSX was to keep binary compat with the "old world" code base. This is less of a concern as we round 10.3, but was a serious consideration in 10.0.
(Really, nobody will be waiting for you when it arrives).
I have financial information for several family members in my home. And the security of my home is a concern to everyone in my family (for many reasons). Does this mean that someone can search for a hide-a-key, and threaten to use one if found?
The fact that some people bring their work home, does not mean that they no longer are in a home.
Best Buy's Web Servers were being threated, but they are public servers. So, if I invite you into my house - it is quite likely that you may notice a security problem that you otherwise may not have found out about from outside. Seeing that flaw from being in my house is not illegal by any means, you were invited past my threshold, and you can now observe the inside of my doorway.
The difference here is that this person is poking and prodding around the outside of the house looking for other ways in. To do so, to a house, you must first leave. If he found another entrance, and entered through the bathroom window - then he clearly wasn't invited in. So at that point, he has done something illegal.
Regardless of posts saying that the "house" thing doesn't apply to networks, it really does. Basically, if in the return of a regular web request (where I'm going to a published page, and following links), I stumble onto a page of system passwords - I have done nothing wrong in FINDING that problem. Even so, if I use or even threaten to use this knowlege - I am again doing something wrong.
Same goes for a hide-a-key. If I find a hide-a-key on the path leading to your front door (where I am expected to be able to go and subsequently ask permission to enter) - there's nothing wrong with my finding the hide-a-key, but it is fully illegal for me to threaten you with entry.
In the end - this guy was doing something illegal, regardless of whether the actions he took to find that knowledge were illegal or not. Extortion and Blackmail are clearly not allowed.
Finally... not that I'm a conspiratist - but I fully believe that there are exploitable bugs in pretty much any mail system. That could allow the extraction of the reader's IP address. The best part - the headers of the original extortion request would tell the FBI exactly what type of bug or exploit to look for. Here the tables are turned though. They could then be breaking in on this user -- and if it was done the wrong way -- if they tricked his computer to give away the IP address without using a standard web-bug, or other similar - well known technology, then they would have had to get a search warrent for this user's computer before doing so. It's not clear from the Star Tribune story that they did have all necessary search warrents. So this may be a loophole for this guy's defence lawyer to walk through. I'm quite curious to see how this turns out.