I'll second that sentiment. Reap the seed that you sow and all that.
I read somewhere (CNN News Alert?) that 30% of US venture capital was looking at businesses and ideas to invest in in China (like that's a smart IP move?). Guess the US just got a 30% cut to the national R&D budget. Guess we'll have to be even more innovative on even less. Hmm, something about everything with nothing comes to mind.
It pains me, and cencerns me, that the legal system has degenerated into this. A system where it's not the legalities of your position, but how much money you can spend of legal manuvers that determines the outcome.
Of course, I guess I already knew that since the Simpsom verdict. (sigh)
I think that Apple's decisions have condemned them to remain a niche player forever. Consider the following:
* If Apple allows the OS to run on any vanilla flavored x86 or x86-64 box * Has a strong Windows emulation layer so that the apps can't really tell it's not on a Windows machine and at least run the MS Office suite * A strong promotional program to explain the security benefits of running OSX in the media, as well as a 'bring in an infected Windows machine, get 50% off the price of the OS' promotion (maybe this could be a downloaded program that talks to Apples web site and emails you a coupon?) * Sell the OS for no more than $150 before discounting * Start negotiating with OEM so that it can be had as a pre-loaded option at a marginal cost greater than Windows
Apple would sell millions of copies of the OS, wouldn't they? We just might be seeing Apple kill off Microsoft's dominance on the desktop. I know that I'm tired of all the patching, viruses, worms, trojans and instability problems associated with the MS OSs. Something like this and I just might dump MS OS, and go with Apple's.
The one thing that everyone seems to be missing is that it's not the OS, it's what applications it'll run for you and how well. I for one, do not look forward to replacing all the application software just to run a new OS. Forcing me to would just kill the whole deal. So the Windows application emulation is, in my mind at least, a requirement for the immediate future. Once the application repurchasing cycle starts, then I'll buy the Apple versions.
I'm not sure what Microsoft would do with such a direct assault in the market. They couldn't change their application so that they'd not run on Apple, they did that with Windows 3.1 and Digital Research's DR DOS, and were found guilty. What else could they do? MS'd have to release a better OS product to compete.
So by not opening the hardware and controlling of the hardware, Apple will continue to be a niche player, as the hardware that'll run their software is minuscule compared to the all the beige boxes that are out there.
Granted, some Joe Users will not see the difference and won't migrate. Some of the people directly affected by the poorly implemented security of the MS OSs will be more inclined to go with a better solution, and I'm sure be willing to pay a little bit more for it. I know that I would, and I'm sure that there are number of business IT departments that look at the cost of chasing down infections and malware vs. a little bit more for the OS could make a compelling business case to their leadership.
Just think how much money and market (or mind) share that Apple could steal away from MS if even 10% of the buying decisions went their way.
Yes, I know. I don't see this as a good move by Jobs. Just think if he were thinking along the lines of grabbing significant portion of MS's market share he'd reconsider it. By not, I think that Apple will forever be a small time niche player, rather than on the scale of MS.
think most "Joe Users" will still just assume MS Windows is good enough and not pay the few extra hundred for Apple branded computers.
I don't know about that. Wouldn't a really aggressive marketing campaign bring the "Joe Users" around to a more stable, more secure OS? If Apple really hammered on the MS OS's faults as part of the campaign, I think that there'd be a fair number of converts, especially if its a pre-loaded option. The larger number of sales are probably to businesses, and there, hopefully smarter IT people will see the value of a stable and secure Apple OS, vs. the MS OS.
I think Apple should really focus on being a software company. It has make MS super rich and IMO, Apple's OS and other software is much better than the comparative offerings from MS.
I quite agree. By forcing the hardware, and essentially closing it (I'm sure that the low level Apple Toolbox library BIOS will be in there), they are needlessly limiting their market. Why not open it up to a larger market and make more money?
I wonder if Apple adopted the predatory stance of any x86 box, what would MS's response be? If MS made their application software not install on Apple, they'd get into the same trouble that they were in with Digital Research's DOS and Windows 3.1. MS couldn't charge more for installation on an Apple OS for much the same reason. What would MS do? If it got to a war in the market, I see them as loosing, and I think that they know it. Perhaps a secret deal between them? MS did put some money into Apple's pockets not too long ago.
While I agree that it
might hurt immediate Apple sales, consider the following:
If Apple allows the OS to run on any
vanilla flavored x86 or x86-64 box
Has a strong Windows emulation layer so
that the apps can't really tell it's not on a Windows machine
A strong promotion, like bring in an
infected Windows machine, get 50% off the price of the OS (maybe this could
be a downloaded program that talks to Apples web site and emails you a
coupon?)
Sell the OS for no more than $150 before
discounting
Start negotiating with OEM so that it can
be had as a pre-loaded option
Apple would sell millions of copies of the OS, wouldn't they? We just might be seeing
Apple kill off Microsoft's dominance on the desktop. I know that I'm tired
of all the patching, viruses, worms, trojans and instability problems associated
with the MS OSs. Something like this and I just might dump MS OS, and go
with Apple's.
The one thing that
everyone seems to be missing is that it's not the OS, it's what applications
it'll run for you and how well. I for one, do not look forward to
replacing all the application software just to run a new OS. Forcing me to
would just kill the whole deal. So the Windows application emulation is, in my
mind at least, a requirement for the immediate future. Once the
application repurchasing cycle starts, then I'll buy the Apple
versions.
What nobody seems to want to realize or talk about is that the US standard of living is draining over to the second and third world nations, and will continue to do so until the standards of living equal out. Such is the reality of this global economy.
By the time the standards of living balance, the typical US worker will be fighting with the illegal immigrants picking produce in the western states with the same lack of opportunities and the same hopelessness, and the same difficulties in bootstrapping yourself to something better.
While at the same time the robber baron board members will still go around blowing million dollar bonuses up each others behinds and signing each other on as CxOs at financially irresponsible employment contracts, making generations of wealth for mere years of work.
The more I come to realize this reality, the more I think that NAFTA and the soon to be passed (or as it already been passed) Central American NAFTA is a means for those in control to continue to exploit the proletariat, but this time, with the global economy, in greater numbers and across national boundaries for ever increasing payoffs to themselves.
I don't see why the ISPs couldn't take some sort of action in the case of a zombied PC on their network. After all, it's their network and their customers that are getting negatively affected by the zombie(s).
All they have to do is call the owner and tell them that they have been compromised, and that they need to clean it up (like download, install, and run MS Antispyware, it's free). Then block all traffic from that PC's IP or MAC address, until the owner calls back and says they've addressed it, and then remove the blocks until the next complaint. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Either the zombied incompetent moves to another ISP (which may or may not confuse the zombie), or they actually fix the problem.
Not taking care of the problem would seem to me as not complying with the spirit of the acceptable use clause that is part of any ISP customer agreement.
Speaking of which, why is it that ISPs don't want you to host your own mail server/web server/ftp server etc.? I'm guessing that it causes too many problems due to open proxies, other compromises, and other miss-configurations. This can be especially the case for the MS server software, and less so for the Linux servers.
I honestly didn't know that the 20 year warning had such an often repeated illustrious history. I've been hearing it only for the last few years.
OTOH, the oil supply is finite, and we can / will / might run out. I suppose that it's largely dependant on how far into the future the human race can actually plan and implement alternatives. From what've seen, our track record isn't all that good.
Seems like we are more likely to run to the last drop and then the innovators try a million different things (thowing crap at the walls, and seeing what the markets allow to stick), settleing the matter for everyone. Of all the attempts only 2% really eng up mattering or work right.
At the present rate of oil consumption, which is increasing by the way, the crude oil reserves will be exhausted in about 20 years.
It's a physics based fact that keeping a mass, such as an air car, airborne consumes more energy than a ground based rolling car. So unless they can figure out how to make an air car run on a renewable energy source, which has less energy than oil based fuels, it'll never happen, or at best, it'll happen as the last of oil reserves are used up, and it'll use them up faster yet on top of that.
"but does that mean it's our manifest destiny to spread life throughout the universe, merely for the sake of spreading life?"
Because this is what viruses like humans do. They move into an area, consume all the natural resources, and then move on to the next area to repeat the same.
Buying a little is good, especially if you have troops and operations in the field that are dependant on the secure communications. Yes, buying a little time is good, but insufficient.
How are you going to re-secure the compromised network? You can't pass any sort of security update via the compromised communications channel, that would be insecure.
Granted, you could have a secondary 'updates only' communications channel. But I wonder how secure that channel would be once the primary communications channel has been compromised.
I disagree. Security through obscurity has been proved not to work time and time again. Granted it may perhaps buy you a little time, but in the long run it won't work.
You know, now that I think about it that's absolutely true.
Still, the mental image of a UCAV (or any other military equipment for that matter) going crazy due to this sort of thing strikes me as humorus and scary all at the same time.
While we all know that Windows is easily subjugated by trojans and viruses, and with the penetration of windows system on the market and connected to the Internet, it's a real problem. Some attribute this to the Windows mono-culture.
Isn't this just another mono-culture waiting to be exploited? Consider the risk. One trojan or virus with a trojan let lose in the military network, and there is no telling what it would / could do. All of a sudden, zillions of fake targets are buzzing around the UCAV's radar as it starts shooting mindlessly at them.
Granted, this assumes, and it's probably a big assumption, that one could connect to the military network in a clandestine nature and remain hidden. But is the risk worth the mono-culture savings?
This is just the recurrence of something that been going on for years. Language specific to a discipline. This time it's computers. Previously it was doctors, lawyers, engineers, carpenters, plumbers auto mechanics........
The previous disciplines basically drew the line and said, if you want to play in this discipline, you'll have to learn the lingo. Now why would anyone expect that the computer and its related disciplines be any different? Just because nearly everyone has one on their desk is not it. Everyone has plumbing in their house and uses it. Nearly everyone has a car and drives it. Why do people, specifically the user community, think that computers should be any different?
A luddite is a technically adverse person. Amish comes to mind.
I am not a luddite. A libertarian, perhaps. An independent, certainly. Suspicious of government, most definitely. Suspicious of power in general, an absolute certainty.
No. You claim is without basis. I am no luddite. I'm a technophile.
I love gadgets, all things that networks allow me to do, information that I can access with the Internet. Telepresence, telemedicin, hell, tele gaming, and virtual communities are way cool. All that stuff is great.
However, I don't want a digital big brother leash following me and everywhere I go, recording everything I buy, everyone that I meet, and everyone that I speak to on a phone. Guess what, VoIP phones are free from the judicial oversight burdens when it comes to wire tapping. These powers represent the dark side of the information revolution, and these powers are so great that they are sure to be abused. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In recent years we have allowed big brother government to take more and more rights and civil protections away from us without any protest. Why? 'Cause the media is chasing rating rather than what they are supposed to do: keep the public informed of significant issues.
And for the record: I do no oppose giving people Internet access. I think that everyone should have an opportunity to have Internet access if they want it. I know that I want it, and I use it every day, and I'll continue to want it as long as it is free from unwarranted intrusion, interception, and observance by the government and law enforcement.
I say unwarranted for a good reason. Currently there is a procedure for law enforcement to perform wire taps on land line phones in the search for evidence. This procedure has a judicial branch oversight (a judge), and it is correct and proper to do so. I don't see where the technological implementation of the private conversation has anything to do with relaxing or exempting anyone from the expectation of privacy of the private conversation. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this and have come to the same conclusion.
Again, I say that I am no luddite. But I don't want all of this intrusion in my life as I've described before. To me, at least, all of this mobile networking based intrusion into my life will be spam that I'll have to have filters and blocking software for. If spam email is any indication, they'll not be effective enough.
What's the very next step after this? "Oh it'll be just so much better if you just let us implant this chip under your skin. In fact, it's a requirement for employment, or food stamps, or social security benefits".
Wake up people! This networking stuff is really powerful, enabling very power applications, but like any powerful tools, there is a very dark side to them that we need to be aware of, and manage, so that we don't just wake up one day in the future, and find out that we have to freedom, or self determination, or responsibility left.
So I'm no luddite, and you claim that I am is without basis.
blanketing regions with free internet and then seeing if a 'killer app' sprouts up that can take advantage of it
OK, so it's still on the 'build it they will come' notion / gamble then. I still don't see the great need for being connected like that all the time. I see wide open, anonymous access for hackers, virus authors and identity thieves. Of course nearly any WiFi access point qualifies for that.
I also see a viable network for distributed RFID readers to access their database back ends to make for greater ease in people tracking. I see web cameras, rather than the more costly dedicated units, all over the place, and the US becoming like the UK. I see the back end capability for the advertisement boards like in the Minority Report movie.
All of these things are intrusive and to my mind not good. And I'm by no means a luddite. I can just see no good coming from this. Granted other than reasonable free Internet connectivity.
OK fine. Sorry I miss-read it. But still. What are the economic advantages of such a thing?
Sure, you can walk around and be connected all the time. Is that an advantage? I think it's just a gimmick.
I don't see why it's cool. I see it as the city assuming greater expense with minimal or no added value. I don't see the value, if someone could tell me what the great value for such a thing is.
In these tight economic times, why would a city consider it a wise move to spend tax payer monies on project like this just escapes me. How is this system going to pay for itself? What sort of economic advantages to the city and the population are going to be generated by this? Isn't this just like the all the tech stock over evaluations that lead to the great tech bomb?
I'd attribute it to the leadership that the team is getting.
A good, participatory leadership style will lead to the "egoless programming" example, while other leadership styles will not lead there. Of course, the team has to be a willing participant in the relationship and be ready for all the freedom and respnsibility that this style of leadership nurtures. Some teams are not ready or capable of this, as are some organizations not ready or capable of this.
The leader sets the tone for the organization, and influences the value system of the organization, just think of what is recognized and rewarded and what is not. It's changing your value system in the work environment.
Hmm. I hadn't considered, or known of this issue. Perhaps something like spamd is more appropriate.
Perhaps I should have realized something like this was going on with SORBS. I have a friend of mine that is also running a Linux mail server on Comcast and like the idea of directly passing private email between our server, but no matter how he tried to get unlisted from SORBS, it wouldn't de-list him, so I just white listed him in my configuration.
I seems to me that RBLs are one of the most powerful tools in the toolbox in dealing with spam, however, I agree that the need to be managed better with some sort of consistent policies. Probably will never happen. Too bad.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll second that sentiment. Reap the seed that you sow and all that.
I read somewhere (CNN News Alert?) that 30% of US venture capital was looking at businesses and ideas to invest in in China (like that's a smart IP move?). Guess the US just got a 30% cut to the national R&D budget. Guess we'll have to be even more innovative on even less. Hmm, something about everything with nothing comes to mind.
It pains me, and cencerns me, that the legal system has degenerated into this. A system where it's not the legalities of your position, but how much money you can spend of legal manuvers that determines the outcome. Of course, I guess I already knew that since the Simpsom verdict. (sigh)
I think that Apple's decisions have condemned them to remain a niche player forever. Consider the following:
* If Apple allows the OS to run on any vanilla flavored x86 or x86-64 box
* Has a strong Windows emulation layer so that the apps can't really tell it's not on a Windows machine and at least run the MS Office suite
* A strong promotional program to explain the security benefits of running OSX in the media, as well as a 'bring in an infected Windows machine, get 50% off the price of the OS' promotion (maybe this could be a downloaded program that talks to Apples web site and emails you a coupon?)
* Sell the OS for no more than $150 before discounting
* Start negotiating with OEM so that it can be had as a pre-loaded option at a marginal cost greater than Windows
Apple would sell millions of copies of the OS, wouldn't they? We just might be seeing Apple kill off Microsoft's dominance on the desktop. I know that I'm tired of all the patching, viruses, worms, trojans and instability problems associated with the MS OSs. Something like this and I just might dump MS OS, and go with Apple's.
The one thing that everyone seems to be missing is that it's not the OS, it's what applications it'll run for you and how well. I for one, do not look forward to replacing all the application software just to run a new OS. Forcing me to would just kill the whole deal. So the Windows application emulation is, in my mind at least, a requirement for the immediate future. Once the application repurchasing cycle starts, then I'll buy the Apple versions.
I'm not sure what Microsoft would do with such a direct assault in the market. They couldn't change their application so that they'd not run on Apple, they did that with Windows 3.1 and Digital Research's DR DOS, and were found guilty. What else could they do? MS'd have to release a better OS product to compete.
So by not opening the hardware and controlling of the hardware, Apple will continue to be a niche player, as the hardware that'll run their software is minuscule compared to the all the beige boxes that are out there.
Granted, some Joe Users will not see the difference and won't migrate. Some of the people directly affected by the poorly implemented security of the MS OSs will be more inclined to go with a better solution, and I'm sure be willing to pay a little bit more for it. I know that I would, and I'm sure that there are number of business IT departments that look at the cost of chasing down infections and malware vs. a little bit more for the OS could make a compelling business case to their leadership.
Just think how much money and market (or mind) share that Apple could steal away from MS if even 10% of the buying decisions went their way.
Yes, I know. I don't see this as a good move by Jobs. Just think if he were thinking along the lines of grabbing significant portion of MS's market share he'd reconsider it. By not, I think that Apple will forever be a small time niche player, rather than on the scale of MS.
think most "Joe Users" will still just assume MS Windows is good enough and not pay the few extra hundred for Apple branded computers.I don't know about that. Wouldn't a really aggressive marketing campaign bring the "Joe Users" around to a more stable, more secure OS? If Apple really hammered on the MS OS's faults as part of the campaign, I think that there'd be a fair number of converts, especially if its a pre-loaded option. The larger number of sales are probably to businesses, and there, hopefully smarter IT people will see the value of a stable and secure Apple OS, vs. the MS OS.
I think Apple should really focus on being a software company. It has make MS super rich and IMO, Apple's OS and other software is much better than the comparative offerings from MS.I quite agree. By forcing the hardware, and essentially closing it (I'm sure that the low level Apple Toolbox library BIOS will be in there), they are needlessly limiting their market. Why not open it up to a larger market and make more money?
I wonder if Apple adopted the predatory stance of any x86 box, what would MS's response be? If MS made their application software not install on Apple, they'd get into the same trouble that they were in with Digital Research's DOS and Windows 3.1. MS couldn't charge more for installation on an Apple OS for much the same reason. What would MS do? If it got to a war in the market, I see them as loosing, and I think that they know it. Perhaps a secret deal between them? MS did put some money into Apple's pockets not too long ago.
- If Apple allows the OS to run on any
vanilla flavored x86 or x86-64 box
- Has a strong Windows emulation layer so
that the apps can't really tell it's not on a Windows machine
- A strong promotion, like bring in an
infected Windows machine, get 50% off the price of the OS (maybe this could
be a downloaded program that talks to Apples web site and emails you a
coupon?)
- Sell the OS for no more than $150 before
discounting
- Start negotiating with OEM so that it can
be had as a pre-loaded option
Apple would sell millions of copies of the OS, wouldn't they? We just might be seeing Apple kill off Microsoft's dominance on the desktop. I know that I'm tired of all the patching, viruses, worms, trojans and instability problems associated with the MS OSs. Something like this and I just might dump MS OS, and go with Apple's. The one thing that everyone seems to be missing is that it's not the OS, it's what applications it'll run for you and how well. I for one, do not look forward to replacing all the application software just to run a new OS. Forcing me to would just kill the whole deal. So the Windows application emulation is, in my mind at least, a requirement for the immediate future. Once the application repurchasing cycle starts, then I'll buy the Apple versions.What nobody seems to want to realize or talk about is that the US standard of living is draining over to the second and third world nations, and will continue to do so until the standards of living equal out. Such is the reality of this global economy.
By the time the standards of living balance, the typical US worker will be fighting with the illegal immigrants picking produce in the western states with the same lack of opportunities and the same hopelessness, and the same difficulties in bootstrapping yourself to something better.
While at the same time the robber baron board members will still go around blowing million dollar bonuses up each others behinds and signing each other on as CxOs at financially irresponsible employment contracts, making generations of wealth for mere years of work.
The more I come to realize this reality, the more I think that NAFTA and the soon to be passed (or as it already been passed) Central American NAFTA is a means for those in control to continue to exploit the proletariat, but this time, with the global economy, in greater numbers and across national boundaries for ever increasing payoffs to themselves.
See what specializing in Windows security will do to you? I recommend against using windows when security is needed. Better to use Linux.
I don't see why the ISPs couldn't take some sort of action in the case of a zombied PC on their network. After all, it's their network and their customers that are getting negatively affected by the zombie(s).
All they have to do is call the owner and tell them that they have been compromised, and that they need to clean it up (like download, install, and run MS Antispyware, it's free). Then block all traffic from that PC's IP or MAC address, until the owner calls back and says they've addressed it, and then remove the blocks until the next complaint. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Either the zombied incompetent moves to another ISP (which may or may not confuse the zombie), or they actually fix the problem.
Not taking care of the problem would seem to me as not complying with the spirit of the acceptable use clause that is part of any ISP customer agreement.
Speaking of which, why is it that ISPs don't want you to host your own mail server/web server/ftp server etc.? I'm guessing that it causes too many problems due to open proxies, other compromises, and other miss-configurations. This can be especially the case for the MS server software, and less so for the Linux servers.
I honestly didn't know that the 20 year warning had such an often repeated illustrious history. I've been hearing it only for the last few years.
OTOH, the oil supply is finite, and we can / will / might run out. I suppose that it's largely dependant on how far into the future the human race can actually plan and implement alternatives. From what've seen, our track record isn't all that good.
Seems like we are more likely to run to the last drop and then the innovators try a million different things (thowing crap at the walls, and seeing what the markets allow to stick), settleing the matter for everyone. Of all the attempts only 2% really eng up mattering or work right.
At the present rate of oil consumption, which is increasing by the way, the crude oil reserves will be exhausted in about 20 years.
It's a physics based fact that keeping a mass, such as an air car, airborne consumes more energy than a ground based rolling car. So unless they can figure out how to make an air car run on a renewable energy source, which has less energy than oil based fuels, it'll never happen, or at best, it'll happen as the last of oil reserves are used up, and it'll use them up faster yet on top of that.
Because this is what viruses like humans do. They move into an area, consume all the natural resources, and then move on to the next area to repeat the same.
(Matrix reference on purpose)Buying a little is good, especially if you have troops and operations in the field that are dependant on the secure communications. Yes, buying a little time is good, but insufficient.
How are you going to re-secure the compromised network? You can't pass any sort of security update via the compromised communications channel, that would be insecure.
Granted, you could have a secondary 'updates only' communications channel. But I wonder how secure that channel would be once the primary communications channel has been compromised.
I disagree. Security through obscurity has been proved not to work time and time again. Granted it may perhaps buy you a little time, but in the long run it won't work.
You know, now that I think about it that's absolutely true.
Still, the mental image of a UCAV (or any other military equipment for that matter) going crazy due to this sort of thing strikes me as humorus and scary all at the same time.
While we all know that Windows is easily subjugated by trojans and viruses, and with the penetration of windows system on the market and connected to the Internet, it's a real problem. Some attribute this to the Windows mono-culture.
Isn't this just another mono-culture waiting to be exploited? Consider the risk. One trojan or virus with a trojan let lose in the military network, and there is no telling what it would / could do. All of a sudden, zillions of fake targets are buzzing around the UCAV's radar as it starts shooting mindlessly at them.
Granted, this assumes, and it's probably a big assumption, that one could connect to the military network in a clandestine nature and remain hidden. But is the risk worth the mono-culture savings?
This is just the recurrence of something that been going on for years. Language specific to a discipline. This time it's computers. Previously it was doctors, lawyers, engineers, carpenters, plumbers auto mechanics ........
The previous disciplines basically drew the line and said, if you want to play in this discipline, you'll have to learn the lingo. Now why would anyone expect that the computer and its related disciplines be any different? Just because nearly everyone has one on their desk is not it. Everyone has plumbing in their house and uses it. Nearly everyone has a car and drives it. Why do people, specifically the user community, think that computers should be any different?
I agree and support your conclusion.
Buy servers (at end of lease or up front), leaese desktops and laptops. Migrating them is easier than migrating a server.
My experience leads me to believe that the useful life span of a server longer than a desktop or a laptop.
I don't think so.
A luddite is a technically adverse person. Amish comes to mind.
I am not a luddite. A libertarian, perhaps. An independent, certainly. Suspicious of government, most definitely. Suspicious of power in general, an absolute certainty.
No. You claim is without basis. I am no luddite. I'm a technophile.
I love gadgets, all things that networks allow me to do, information that I can access with the Internet. Telepresence, telemedicin, hell, tele gaming, and virtual communities are way cool. All that stuff is great.
However, I don't want a digital big brother leash following me and everywhere I go, recording everything I buy, everyone that I meet, and everyone that I speak to on a phone. Guess what, VoIP phones are free from the judicial oversight burdens when it comes to wire tapping. These powers represent the dark side of the information revolution, and these powers are so great that they are sure to be abused. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In recent years we have allowed big brother government to take more and more rights and civil protections away from us without any protest. Why? 'Cause the media is chasing rating rather than what they are supposed to do: keep the public informed of significant issues.
And for the record: I do no oppose giving people Internet access. I think that everyone should have an opportunity to have Internet access if they want it. I know that I want it, and I use it every day, and I'll continue to want it as long as it is free from unwarranted intrusion, interception, and observance by the government and law enforcement.
I say unwarranted for a good reason. Currently there is a procedure for law enforcement to perform wire taps on land line phones in the search for evidence. This procedure has a judicial branch oversight (a judge), and it is correct and proper to do so. I don't see where the technological implementation of the private conversation has anything to do with relaxing or exempting anyone from the expectation of privacy of the private conversation. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this and have come to the same conclusion.
Again, I say that I am no luddite. But I don't want all of this intrusion in my life as I've described before. To me, at least, all of this mobile networking based intrusion into my life will be spam that I'll have to have filters and blocking software for. If spam email is any indication, they'll not be effective enough.
What's the very next step after this? "Oh it'll be just so much better if you just let us implant this chip under your skin. In fact, it's a requirement for employment, or food stamps, or social security benefits".
Wake up people! This networking stuff is really powerful, enabling very power applications, but like any powerful tools, there is a very dark side to them that we need to be aware of, and manage, so that we don't just wake up one day in the future, and find out that we have to freedom, or self determination, or responsibility left.
So I'm no luddite, and you claim that I am is without basis.
OK, so it's still on the 'build it they will come' notion / gamble then. I still don't see the great need for being connected like that all the time. I see wide open, anonymous access for hackers, virus authors and identity thieves. Of course nearly any WiFi access point qualifies for that.
I also see a viable network for distributed RFID readers to access their database back ends to make for greater ease in people tracking. I see web cameras, rather than the more costly dedicated units, all over the place, and the US becoming like the UK. I see the back end capability for the advertisement boards like in the Minority Report movie.
All of these things are intrusive and to my mind not good. And I'm by no means a luddite. I can just see no good coming from this. Granted other than reasonable free Internet connectivity.
OK fine. Sorry I miss-read it. But still. What are the economic advantages of such a thing? Sure, you can walk around and be connected all the time. Is that an advantage? I think it's just a gimmick.
I don't see why it's cool. I see it as the city assuming greater expense with minimal or no added value. I don't see the value, if someone could tell me what the great value for such a thing is.
In these tight economic times, why would a city consider it a wise move to spend tax payer monies on project like this just escapes me. How is this system going to pay for itself? What sort of economic advantages to the city and the population are going to be generated by this? Isn't this just like the all the tech stock over evaluations that lead to the great tech bomb?
Well, if you notice that the comments count on the front page would appear to be at an all time low, so I guess /. has made itself irrelevant today.
I'd attribute it to the leadership that the team is getting.
A good, participatory leadership style will lead to the "egoless programming" example, while other leadership styles will not lead there. Of course, the team has to be a willing participant in the relationship and be ready for all the freedom and respnsibility that this style of leadership nurtures. Some teams are not ready or capable of this, as are some organizations not ready or capable of this.
The leader sets the tone for the organization, and influences the value system of the organization, just think of what is recognized and rewarded and what is not. It's changing your value system in the work environment.
Wouldn't you rather work for a good leader?
Hmm. I hadn't considered, or known of this issue. Perhaps something like spamd is more appropriate.
Perhaps I should have realized something like this was going on with SORBS. I have a friend of mine that is also running a Linux mail server on Comcast and like the idea of directly passing private email between our server, but no matter how he tried to get unlisted from SORBS, it wouldn't de-list him, so I just white listed him in my configuration.
I seems to me that RBLs are one of the most powerful tools in the toolbox in dealing with spam, however, I agree that the need to be managed better with some sort of consistent policies. Probably will never happen. Too bad.