I'm ashamed to realize that I forgot my DEC employee number.:-(
I went to work for DEC as a computer operator in late '89 at the Cupertino, CA. chip plant where they manufacturered the M-sets for the VAX9000. To the guy who mentioned that "they used to be water cooled". Part of the engineering challenge was an air cooled mainframe from the drawing board. Air cooled mainframes of that class was the goal.
DECnet being the VMS system data-bus for peripheral devices, virtually any peripheral device, was for me, the "neato" factor. Washing machine sized "hubs", washing machine sized tape drives and refrigerator sized disk cabinet as far as the eye could see.
I remember using a MicroVAX to "join" a DECnet node cluster so that I could look at certain privileged files on one of bigger nodes. The results? It worked. The outcome? I would have gotten away with it if I had cleanly removed the MicroVAX from the cluster. About a dozen complaints later, the System Managers came looking for the MicroVAX causing a bottleneck. I was able to keep the MicroVAX by letting them know how I did it. Fortunate for me, it wasn't anything more complicated than the fact that DECnet would simply let *any* node join a cluster.;)
The Alpha was DEC's savior but they insisted on marketing it as a Windows server platform. Olsen never saw the decline of the mainframe market coming and the DEC marketing geeks were too mainframe market oriented (read that as "high margin revenue, long term contract") and rubbed elbows too closely with government types. This developed a "build it and they will buy it" mindset. Change was sluggish at DEC and that is being kind.
I don't know that it matters the purpose for rating security problems nor is the emphasis on head-to-head number of events matter a great deal either. For instance, I didn't note in the article a comparison of how quickly firms or organizations responded with security fixes or notices of the security problem. We all know that the Linux community would lead any such comparison.
It is interesting to note though that an OS or apps "perceived" security relies heavily on the community using it. That Windows is insecure is well known mostly because a lot of people take much delight in exploiting the flaws (and no doubt, there are a lot of flaws). However, with the flaws in *nix flavor OS, they're there but they are fixed quicker and there aren't a lot of people taking great delight in exploiting the flaws. The perception derives from this nuance.
On the issue of "who does or doesn't" get exploited - I installed RedHat 6.1 and before I could get the system updated and general security in place, someone had gained root access and left a funky UID behind as a "nya-nya". It had been connected to broadband for only 30 minutes. I installed RH 7 and there wasn't a repeat of the incident (although the attempts were numerous - once an exploitable IP gets found, it makes the rounds among certain folk).
When VCR's were as cheap as $100 and came with all the bells and whistles, I bought a Sony that cost $500. On the surface, that didn't make any sense to most anyone at the time. However, 10 years later I still have that VCR and it functions as well as the day I bought it. The only problem I've had with it is the occasional head demag and I've had to replace grease that had crystalized and wasn't allowing the tape-grab assembly from keeping tension on the tape as it inserted/ejected the tape.
So, I can get a DVD Recorder cheap but can I buy only one and enjoy its use till the media format nears obsolescence?
In all seriousness, as a parent what are your concerns?
My primary concern is that kids are natively naive and undisciplined about a lot of issues and circumstances in which they can get involved. Unfortunately, so are a lot of parents. Speaking to the issue of porn, according to what I read, adults are experiencing a form of addiction. Can you imagine what can occur with kids?
Bear in mind too that this isn't just about porn - How many parents got a lawsuit notice 'cause their kid was downloading "free" music or binary copies of copyrighted material? What about the perceived "glamour" for being an "elite" in the underground and VX crowd? How many parents want the FBI knocking on their door (or knocking down their door) 'cause their little darling thought it would be a cool idea to take advantage of a cool new 'sploit he found?
I don't see much difference between what you allow your kids to do out in the world and the online world. The problems are very similar.
Regarding all the "kids will hack it" and "watch your kids" content so far.
The underlying issue is quite simple - Access to the Internet is the equivalent of allowing your kids to leave the yard without permission, not bothering to know where they are, who they're contacting or being contacted by and generally leaving them at the mercy of the big, bad world.
So, establishing them on isolated segement NAT'd computers where every single 0 and 1 goes through a router that their parents manage or through a proxy service of the same circumstance isn't anything more complicated than insuring that Jack or Jane ask permission to leave the yard and to know where they're going and who they'll see when they do.
With kids, you don't throw out the rules for sake of convenience or with the idea of being "progressive" about child rearing. The consequences are just too dire.
I'd almost bet my next paycheck that this is a nuisance suit brought on by a sore loser. As has been pointed out, a prior employer can't ask you to commit to "not compete".
In addition to that, a lot of people learned a lot of hard ball during the tech explosion of the 80's. I don't know a software engineer or a programmer today that doesn't read employment agreements thoroughly and know to not commit to certain language in certain agreements, even if they're unenforceable on their face. You're better off not signing it and not allowing lawyer "interpretation" afterwards.
I can't imagine a Ph.D being dumb enough to sign anything that would give these folks a reason to sue. Either that or he *did* take IP with him when he left.
You're putting the cart before the horse. Patents and Copyright were not introduced in order to protect the business interests of inventors or authors, this was only the means. The ends were to encourage more innovation, as outlined in Section 8 sentence 8 of the US Constitution:
To be accurate, that portion of Section 8 dealt with the general issue before the founding under the current Constitution - The devine right of royalty provided that people were royal subjects, individuals that were subjects of royalty owned nothing and could count nothing theirs without the consent of a sovereign.
As the founders indicated that every individual was a sovereign entity in their own right, they had to establish protections. Essentially, protecting something almost unheard of at the time - Individuals were entitled to be recognized for their art and to be the first, if not the only, person to be rewarded for the effort.
To be accurate there was an initial license agreement between Apple and Microsoft, much as there was between Xerox and Apple. However, what both suits got down to was "look and feel" and Apple (and Xerox) lost on that account as both courts had to contend with the contract issues. Neither was necessarily a "patent" fight from the start. The only slap that Microsoft received, for instance, was the one they should have recieved - Continued implementation and use of what they did receive from Apple via the agreement. Otherwise, Apple (and they probably got the idea from Xerox trying the same thing) continued to try to protect "look and feel" using nothing more than then their OS as "proof" in their claim. Neither court indicated they would entertain the idea of such broad based IP rights. Apples case against MS even went to SC review (and was denied if I recall).
Point of fact, Apple certainly copied "look and feel" from Windows later on and were free to do so.
Patents for an idea makes sense, in part, when an inventor wanted to protect his or her ability to profit or control the result of their effort. Patents and intellectual property protections were designed to prevent people from using your idea or effort to their betterment at your expense. So far, so good. There's very little to argue with as nothing contained in the previous contains anything unreasonable.
Where the process has become abused is when the Patent Office began taking patent applications that didn't require a manifestation of some sort to "prove" your effort is unique or uniquely yours. There's nothing tangible in many of these contentious patents. They're just "ideas" and "descriptions". There's no "proof" or "gadget" that you can gin up to bolster what you're trying to protect. There's no math or engineering involved, such as programmatic effort or time in a machine shop.
That is where the demarcation should begin. When Xerox sued Apple and lost over the use of graphic icons on a 2D screen and similarly, when Apple sued Microsoft over "look and feel" and lost; That should have established the ground rules and in my opinion, neither Xerox nor Apple had a case. Instead, people have been testing the upper limits of what patents protections ever since based on nothing more than the motto, "You might get lucky.".
Yes but it isn't a problem that government needs to worry about much beyond the truly criminal; such as kiddie porn, snuff and rape material, etc. Track those jerks down and spend an extra primer on my say-so ('cause I said so).
They're kids and these kids have parents and what they do in the privacy of their bedroom or their parents home can be handled by NAT and filters on the home network router. Any Linux host does this out of the box (not quite an exageration) and the skills aren't that hard to pick up. And there are ISP's that cater to this sort of thing - "family friendly" use of the Internet.
The intent is good but government doesn't have the need to get involved at this level and we don't want them involved at this level. The 5 on the SC made a good call.
... it should be self contained sufficiently to handle the hyper-glaciation (the atmoshphere freezes onto the surface)predicted by the eco-friendly elements among us. And it should have the ark like capacity to repopulate the planet after the thaw.
You don't seem to understand the ramifications of even a temporary restraining order and the issue of a priori or in this case a posteriori.
Cooler heads will prevail. The idiots representing the ISP will get their act together and argue this using the "possible vs impossible" for the cost angle surrounding IP technology and likely will prevail. Point being, emphasis is on "likely". This a courtroom after all and unfortunately anything is possible.
I remember those days too. However, the important reason for having asm and basic was because there weren't thousands of software titles on the shelf.:-P
I'd agree though that it would still be useful to have some basic development tools situated and optimized for the OS installed on your PC.
I could point out that Linux has done this since the early days of the kernel but I won't troll.
I read about such research 15 years ago. Cancer was what generated the funding but the "practical" uses for the technology seemed to concentrate on general health issues. Early detection of certain bacteria and virus infections, for instance. Early warning for TB and blood related illnesses were specifically mentioned, if I recall.
I remember the bad ol' days when security was a matter of what you did or didn't do rather than what you didn't know was occurring without your knowledge!
Abstracting the user from programmatic events wasn't supposed to make your use of the computer a crap-shoot.
As eye candy goes, this one has appeal but it still smacks of the "build it and they will come" methodology. Many mainstream vendors didn't survive during the 90's with that gimmick and I'm not certain that this will either.
Besides, it's an improvement on OS X or a direct rip-off, can't tell which yet. I'd prefer that *nix GUI innovate rather than compete for share, IMHO. The market will decide one way or the other.
I noticed quite a few comments being made about how someone could "not cash out on $135M" being just plain stupid. Have you ever wondered why Bill Gates doesn't cash out his billion$ in stock?
What/.'s need to understand is not everyone gets options like that - only corporate officers (stake holders) qualify for that type of compensation. What you also need to understand is that you're not free to do with those options whatever one wants. As a corporate officer you're subject to various rules as to when you can sell, how many shares you can sell (to avoid greenmail and other effects) at one time in addition to how the options were granted to begin with... such as performance or goal stipulations tied to your ability to exercise those options under the other rules that apply. Otherwise called "carrot on a stick" incentive for people who will maintain a high degree of interest for keeping the stock value high for extended periods of time.
It is entirely likely that someone cannot exercise their shares in a way to get the highest value from them. Under those terms, with implications of mismanagement leading to a devaluation of stock value, a lawsuit might have basis when between corporate stake holders.
I cannot help but notice that people anthropomorhpise what will always be an object or an animal based on nothing more than interaction. As robotics progress to the level that we might even close on the true definition of self awareness, we must be careful in suggesting that a "smart" machine is something more than a smart machine.
We might someday have to face the challenge of dealing with the implications of sentient artificial intelligence, or the hybrid between organic and mechanical (i.e.- cyborg), but we certainly need to resist efforts in not distinguishing between a machine and a person just because it speaks your language (using your voice perhaps) or can follow you around the house on two legs.
The things that bothered me with the original (like the gratuitious nudity and slow pace) were left out.
I don't know that nudity in anything from the Japanese is gratuitious. Nudity doesn't have the same stigma with them as it does in the West. If there isn't any nudity it's either a "western" influence (for western distribution) or it wasn't appropriate to the plot element even for Japanese.
Once again the subject comes up and out of the 100+ comments so far, nothing is mentioned about spy- and mal-ware taking advantage of the basic client/server technology standard that drives the WWW. Very little is mentioned as to the individual actions of the "victim" being part of the problem. As for geekdom being the last refuge of the "agressive individualist"? Many certainly sound like sheeple on this particular topic.
The answer is right there in the technology standard itself. If there is a technology "loophole" that jag-offs are exploiting, close the loophole. If the session based relationship between the web server and the web client leaves open the door for the web server operator to make money with adverts and "session access", it's his web server and no one forced you to connect to the server, vote with your feet.
Many here are technologists of one stripe or other, so, solve the problem and quit yer whining about "rights". In the context of objective circumstances, the issue of rights are misplaced since the right to address this particular problem lays largely unused, IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
We can stop dual-booting and rebooting?
I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm ashamed to realize that I forgot my DEC employee number. :-(
;)
I went to work for DEC as a computer operator in late '89 at the Cupertino, CA. chip plant where they manufacturered the M-sets for the VAX9000. To the guy who mentioned that "they used to be water cooled". Part of the engineering challenge was an air cooled mainframe from the drawing board. Air cooled mainframes of that class was the goal.
DECnet being the VMS system data-bus for peripheral devices, virtually any peripheral device, was for me, the "neato" factor. Washing machine sized "hubs", washing machine sized tape drives and refrigerator sized disk cabinet as far as the eye could see.
I remember using a MicroVAX to "join" a DECnet node cluster so that I could look at certain privileged files on one of bigger nodes. The results? It worked. The outcome? I would have gotten away with it if I had cleanly removed the MicroVAX from the cluster. About a dozen complaints later, the System Managers came looking for the MicroVAX causing a bottleneck. I was able to keep the MicroVAX by letting them know how I did it. Fortunate for me, it wasn't anything more complicated than the fact that DECnet would simply let *any* node join a cluster.
The Alpha was DEC's savior but they insisted on marketing it as a Windows server platform. Olsen never saw the decline of the mainframe market coming and the DEC marketing geeks were too mainframe market oriented (read that as "high margin revenue, long term contract") and rubbed elbows too closely with government types. This developed a "build it and they will buy it" mindset. Change was sluggish at DEC and that is being kind.
I don't know that it matters the purpose for rating security problems nor is the emphasis on head-to-head number of events matter a great deal either. For instance, I didn't note in the article a comparison of how quickly firms or organizations responded with security fixes or notices of the security problem. We all know that the Linux community would lead any such comparison.
It is interesting to note though that an OS or apps "perceived" security relies heavily on the community using it. That Windows is insecure is well known mostly because a lot of people take much delight in exploiting the flaws (and no doubt, there are a lot of flaws). However, with the flaws in *nix flavor OS, they're there but they are fixed quicker and there aren't a lot of people taking great delight in exploiting the flaws. The perception derives from this nuance.
On the issue of "who does or doesn't" get exploited - I installed RedHat 6.1 and before I could get the system updated and general security in place, someone had gained root access and left a funky UID behind as a "nya-nya". It had been connected to broadband for only 30 minutes. I installed RH 7 and there wasn't a repeat of the incident (although the attempts were numerous - once an exploitable IP gets found, it makes the rounds among certain folk).
When VCR's were as cheap as $100 and came with all the bells and whistles, I bought a Sony that cost $500. On the surface, that didn't make any sense to most anyone at the time. However, 10 years later I still have that VCR and it functions as well as the day I bought it. The only problem I've had with it is the occasional head demag and I've had to replace grease that had crystalized and wasn't allowing the tape-grab assembly from keeping tension on the tape as it inserted/ejected the tape.
So, I can get a DVD Recorder cheap but can I buy only one and enjoy its use till the media format nears obsolescence?
My primary concern is that kids are natively naive and undisciplined about a lot of issues and circumstances in which they can get involved. Unfortunately, so are a lot of parents. Speaking to the issue of porn, according to what I read, adults are experiencing a form of addiction. Can you imagine what can occur with kids?
Bear in mind too that this isn't just about porn - How many parents got a lawsuit notice 'cause their kid was downloading "free" music or binary copies of copyrighted material? What about the perceived "glamour" for being an "elite" in the underground and VX crowd? How many parents want the FBI knocking on their door (or knocking down their door) 'cause their little darling thought it would be a cool idea to take advantage of a cool new 'sploit he found?
I don't see much difference between what you allow your kids to do out in the world and the online world. The problems are very similar.
Regarding all the "kids will hack it" and "watch your kids" content so far.
The underlying issue is quite simple - Access to the Internet is the equivalent of allowing your kids to leave the yard without permission, not bothering to know where they are, who they're contacting or being contacted by and generally leaving them at the mercy of the big, bad world.
So, establishing them on isolated segement NAT'd computers where every single 0 and 1 goes through a router that their parents manage or through a proxy service of the same circumstance isn't anything more complicated than insuring that Jack or Jane ask permission to leave the yard and to know where they're going and who they'll see when they do.
With kids, you don't throw out the rules for sake of convenience or with the idea of being "progressive" about child rearing. The consequences are just too dire.
I'd almost bet my next paycheck that this is a nuisance suit brought on by a sore loser. As has been pointed out, a prior employer can't ask you to commit to "not compete".
In addition to that, a lot of people learned a lot of hard ball during the tech explosion of the 80's. I don't know a software engineer or a programmer today that doesn't read employment agreements thoroughly and know to not commit to certain language in certain agreements, even if they're unenforceable on their face. You're better off not signing it and not allowing lawyer "interpretation" afterwards.
I can't imagine a Ph.D being dumb enough to sign anything that would give these folks a reason to sue. Either that or he *did* take IP with him when he left.
As the founders indicated that every individual was a sovereign entity in their own right, they had to establish protections. Essentially, protecting something almost unheard of at the time - Individuals were entitled to be recognized for their art and to be the first, if not the only, person to be rewarded for the effort.
To be accurate there was an initial license agreement between Apple and Microsoft, much as there was between Xerox and Apple. However, what both suits got down to was "look and feel" and Apple (and Xerox) lost on that account as both courts had to contend with the contract issues. Neither was necessarily a "patent" fight from the start. The only slap that Microsoft received, for instance, was the one they should have recieved - Continued implementation and use of what they did receive from Apple via the agreement. Otherwise, Apple (and they probably got the idea from Xerox trying the same thing) continued to try to protect "look and feel" using nothing more than then their OS as "proof" in their claim. Neither court indicated they would entertain the idea of such broad based IP rights. Apples case against MS even went to SC review (and was denied if I recall).
Point of fact, Apple certainly copied "look and feel" from Windows later on and were free to do so.
Patents for an idea makes sense, in part, when an inventor wanted to protect his or her ability to profit or control the result of their effort. Patents and intellectual property protections were designed to prevent people from using your idea or effort to their betterment at your expense. So far, so good. There's very little to argue with as nothing contained in the previous contains anything unreasonable.
Where the process has become abused is when the Patent Office began taking patent applications that didn't require a manifestation of some sort to "prove" your effort is unique or uniquely yours. There's nothing tangible in many of these contentious patents. They're just "ideas" and "descriptions". There's no "proof" or "gadget" that you can gin up to bolster what you're trying to protect. There's no math or engineering involved, such as programmatic effort or time in a machine shop.
That is where the demarcation should begin. When Xerox sued Apple and lost over the use of graphic icons on a 2D screen and similarly, when Apple sued Microsoft over "look and feel" and lost; That should have established the ground rules and in my opinion, neither Xerox nor Apple had a case. Instead, people have been testing the upper limits of what patents protections ever since based on nothing more than the motto, "You might get lucky.".
Yes but it isn't a problem that government needs to worry about much beyond the truly criminal; such as kiddie porn, snuff and rape material, etc. Track those jerks down and spend an extra primer on my say-so ('cause I said so).
They're kids and these kids have parents and what they do in the privacy of their bedroom or their parents home can be handled by NAT and filters on the home network router. Any Linux host does this out of the box (not quite an exageration) and the skills aren't that hard to pick up. And there are ISP's that cater to this sort of thing - "family friendly" use of the Internet.
The intent is good but government doesn't have the need to get involved at this level and we don't want them involved at this level. The 5 on the SC made a good call.
... it should be self contained sufficiently to handle the hyper-glaciation (the atmoshphere freezes onto the surface)predicted by the eco-friendly elements among us. And it should have the ark like capacity to repopulate the planet after the thaw.
Mod me troll if you must, I couldn't resist.
You don't seem to understand the ramifications of even a temporary restraining order and the issue of a priori or in this case a posteriori.
Cooler heads will prevail. The idiots representing the ISP will get their act together and argue this using the "possible vs impossible" for the cost angle surrounding IP technology and likely will prevail. Point being, emphasis is on "likely". This a courtroom after all and unfortunately anything is possible.
... but you don't want to pay for it. Take my word for it.
I remember those days too. However, the important reason for having asm and basic was because there weren't thousands of software titles on the shelf. :-P
I'd agree though that it would still be useful to have some basic development tools situated and optimized for the OS installed on your PC.
I could point out that Linux has done this since the early days of the kernel but I won't troll.
I read about such research 15 years ago. Cancer was what generated the funding but the "practical" uses for the technology seemed to concentrate on general health issues. Early detection of certain bacteria and virus infections, for instance. Early warning for TB and blood related illnesses were specifically mentioned, if I recall.
It might be the effects of /. but while I was trying to re-link the url I get this...
/var/www/acmqueue.com/htdocs/db/db.php on line 88 ;-)
Fatal error: Call to undefined function: message_die in
I remember the bad ol' days when security was a matter of what you did or didn't do rather than what you didn't know was occurring without your knowledge!
Abstracting the user from programmatic events wasn't supposed to make your use of the computer a crap-shoot.
As eye candy goes, this one has appeal but it still smacks of the "build it and they will come" methodology. Many mainstream vendors didn't survive during the 90's with that gimmick and I'm not certain that this will either.
Besides, it's an improvement on OS X or a direct rip-off, can't tell which yet. I'd prefer that *nix GUI innovate rather than compete for share, IMHO. The market will decide one way or the other.
I noticed quite a few comments being made about how someone could "not cash out on $135M" being just plain stupid. Have you ever wondered why Bill Gates doesn't cash out his billion$ in stock?
/.'s need to understand is not everyone gets options like that - only corporate officers (stake holders) qualify for that type of compensation. What you also need to understand is that you're not free to do with those options whatever one wants. As a corporate officer you're subject to various rules as to when you can sell, how many shares you can sell (to avoid greenmail and other effects) at one time in addition to how the options were granted to begin with... such as performance or goal stipulations tied to your ability to exercise those options under the other rules that apply. Otherwise called "carrot on a stick" incentive for people who will maintain a high degree of interest for keeping the stock value high for extended periods of time.
What
It is entirely likely that someone cannot exercise their shares in a way to get the highest value from them. Under those terms, with implications of mismanagement leading to a devaluation of stock value, a lawsuit might have basis when between corporate stake holders.
I cannot help but notice that people anthropomorhpise what will always be an object or an animal based on nothing more than interaction. As robotics progress to the level that we might even close on the true definition of self awareness, we must be careful in suggesting that a "smart" machine is something more than a smart machine.
We might someday have to face the challenge of dealing with the implications of sentient artificial intelligence, or the hybrid between organic and mechanical (i.e.- cyborg), but we certainly need to resist efforts in not distinguishing between a machine and a person just because it speaks your language (using your voice perhaps) or can follow you around the house on two legs.
I don't know that nudity in anything from the Japanese is gratuitious. Nudity doesn't have the same stigma with them as it does in the West. If there isn't any nudity it's either a "western" influence (for western distribution) or it wasn't appropriate to the plot element even for Japanese.
This will finally put an end to the engineering argument over what is or isn't a male/female data connector!
Once again the subject comes up and out of the 100+ comments so far, nothing is mentioned about spy- and mal-ware taking advantage of the basic client/server technology standard that drives the WWW. Very little is mentioned as to the individual actions of the "victim" being part of the problem. As for geekdom being the last refuge of the "agressive individualist"? Many certainly sound like sheeple on this particular topic.
The answer is right there in the technology standard itself. If there is a technology "loophole" that jag-offs are exploiting, close the loophole. If the session based relationship between the web server and the web client leaves open the door for the web server operator to make money with adverts and "session access", it's his web server and no one forced you to connect to the server, vote with your feet.
Many here are technologists of one stripe or other, so, solve the problem and quit yer whining about "rights". In the context of objective circumstances, the issue of rights are misplaced since the right to address this particular problem lays largely unused, IMHO.
Can someone tell me why using the metric system is superior to the American forms of measurement? Not opinion mind you, but the science of it, please.
:-p
As far as opinion goes - Personally, I think doing exactly the opposite of France and Germany isn't such a terrible strategy!