I certainly use a lot of Google's services, and I like them. My email is Gmail, and my open source project is hosted on google code (because I got truly sick of the constant issues on sourceforge). Both those things are not too hard for me to change as an individual.
I like their philosophy too, I'm just wondering if it will be ever thus. In my experience, a little caution goes a long way. Cynicism can be a useful tool at times.
My plan is to continue using Google products for quite some time. I'm wary of over dependence though, so I won't be getting myself into a position where I would find it hard to move away. I already did that with Office once, until I discovered OpenOffice and was able finally to break my addiction...
It's not about when will Google/Mozilla replace Microsoft Office in usability. That's already happened.
It has? Did I miss a memo or something?
As interesting and featureful as the alternatives to MsOffice are, they are nowhere near gaining sufficient market penetration for the average office user to be using them instead of MsOffice. I think that'll take a teensy bit longer.
And the online google spreadsheet/office package is a bit too basic just yet for mainstream use. You can't even embed charts in the spreadsheet, a bit of a drawback that.
I honestly think Microsoft will start handing out free cut down versions of MsOffice (as in like office 97 level of functionality) if OpenOffice/Google and co become a serious threat. No doubt with some seriously gay restrictions, like how many documents can be open, number of fonts or something.
What bothers me is that there seems to be a definite trend to try and move away from Microsoft controlled solutions to ones either controlled or assisted by Google.
Are we so sure that Google will always be nice? Do we want our online office and email to become dependant on yet another single vendor?
Ok, I don't know anyone but google who could help beat the Microsoft monopoly on office services, but if they do become the dominant player, who's to say that things won't change in the google camp? Anyone who gains power rarely likes to give it up, and is rarely happy for other people to threaten their position.
I'm short on alternatives here, but it's a concern I think a few more people should be pondering.
likely it would have been a specific build for the testers only that was leaked.
Insiders doing it would probably have access to a great many test builds, not just the one sent to the externals. However insiders would also have fabulously well paid jobs and severe contractual penalties for doing something this stupid. Not the kind of people likely to risk all for a leaked test build.
Besides, what would be the career consequences for someone being denounced by Microsoft for doing a thing like that? The closed source OS world, Microsoft in particular, are not forgiving of such things. Never working in the field again would spring to mind.
I'd go for someone being over confident about security and letting another person steal it by neglect, rather than intentionally.
If by some bizarre chance is was deliberate, then they're so stupid they need to be culled from the industry anyway.
"we didn't realise how much money could be made using and controlling the internet, and we don't like all this unprofitable freedom that's happening."
Its so obvious. Also, so doomed to failure. The most they could do is end up with two networks, the 'clean' (hah) neo conservative approved internet, and a much more interesting underground internet where all the fun things happen.
You sir, are very correct. I cannot deny that it's sad that I do this. However I am indeed stuck without a job for the next year while I write up, and I'm bored.
I view friday and saturday as 'have fun on slashdot' nights. because I can't afford much else. What's irritating is that I keep making comments that get modded up because, dammit, slashdot has such interesting debates.
and hookers that look nice from a distance are actually crusty pensioners.
Of all the scenes in 1984 (the film, not book), that one conveyed the decay of the society more than any other methinks. I also consider it one of richard burtons finest performances, but I'm probably in a minority there.
Knowing a possible mechanism is important, yes, but that's a long way from having a workable implementation of the method that is useful in a technological sense.
it's not that silly. They saw a way to make money from the current delusion that data can be unbreakably secured.
The only way to secure data is to make it so absolutely no-one but the authorised people have access to it. You can keep data secure physically if you isolate it from any form of access. However information does not work well if isolated like that, information has to be shareable to be useful, otherwise its just dead data, worthless bits.
I have several pieces of information that are unhackable. That's because they are written to dvds in a non encrypted form, but the dvds themselves are stashed away where no-one can find them.
That is alas also a delusion, because if I died tomorrow no doubt someone could find them. However, so long as I'm around to protect them, they are safe.
That's not a good way to think if you realise that there is money in pseudo security. Paranoia of customers can be a source of income, and a wise businessman will take advantage of that whenever possible.
I'm not too keen on Stallmans ongoing political agenda, but I cannot imagine an open source world without his keystone contributions.
His implementation of Lint (Splint) has reduced me to nervous wreck on more than one occasion, but it did improve my C coding skills.
About the only thing he wrote that I don't use is Emacs. I can appreciate its quality, and have taught its usage in the classroom, but I prefer Vim.
Thing is, politics aside, the guy is one awesome hacker, with few equals and fewer betters. Ok most of those achievements are in the past, but that can't be used against him unless the person making the argument has first exceeded his output.
I'm perhaps getting myself confused. He actually said that you couldn't trace a line back from us to the dinosaurs directly. You had to go past them to find a common ancestor. That's why they aren't more prominent in the book.
it's probably quite easy to hack a satellite, if you have signalling devices capable of reaching them. Those are easy to come by.
Satellites are not, with the possible exception of military satts, built to withstand a concerted hacking episode. They're expensive enough as it is. Just outfitting with basic, robust, telecoms repeater technology is difficult enough.
You might find that satellites start becoming more robust to hacking. However since the trend is to move away from large high cost installations to small cheap satellite constellations and high altitude autonomous aircraft, it's likely that they will stay just as easy to crack. It could be cheaper to turn off a compromised satellite then to attempt to make it so attacks (which constantly evolve) can be resisted.
I used Caldera Linux too at one point, and liked it. I stopped because Red Hat Linux turned out to be better for my needs. Caldera Linux had some pretty good developers who helped advance Linux into the corporate field.
Caldera was a bit different back then though, McBride wasn't part of the company back then for one thing.
I thought that in 'The Ancestors Tale' Dawkins said that dinosaurs belonged to a completely different lineage and were unimportant in the evolution of Mammals
Perhaps Evolutionary Algorithms might also need to be undermined, since while they are part of mathematics, they were created in response to our understanding of evolution and nature.
I'm not sure whether pure mathematicians would consider the EA to be a proper member of their field. The outcome of an algorithm is rarely predictable, with randomness and approximation being the cornerstones of the art. They do borrow from, and are therefore related to, other fields, like physics (simulated annealing), and economics (Multi-Objective Optimisation).
Still, they are, in my opinion, something that would have to be abandoned/rejected if one were to adopt a short sighted creationist view.
Here's a funny thing. If fundamentalists got their way and we rejected evolution and other sciences in favour of religious explanations, the doctrine of creationism would probably lead into the inevitability of extinction.
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly use a lot of Google's services, and I like them. My email is Gmail, and my open source project is hosted on google code (because I got truly sick of the constant issues on sourceforge). Both those things are not too hard for me to change as an individual.
I like their philosophy too, I'm just wondering if it will be ever thus. In my experience, a little caution goes a long way. Cynicism can be a useful tool at times.
My plan is to continue using Google products for quite some time. I'm wary of over dependence though, so I won't be getting myself into a position where I would find it hard to move away. I already did that with Office once, until I discovered OpenOffice and was able finally to break my addiction...
It's not about when will Google/Mozilla replace Microsoft Office in usability. That's already happened.
It has? Did I miss a memo or something?
As interesting and featureful as the alternatives to MsOffice are, they are nowhere near gaining sufficient market penetration for the average office user to be using them instead of MsOffice. I think that'll take a teensy bit longer.
And the online google spreadsheet/office package is a bit too basic just yet for mainstream use. You can't even embed charts in the spreadsheet, a bit of a drawback that.
I honestly think Microsoft will start handing out free cut down versions of MsOffice (as in like office 97 level of functionality) if OpenOffice/Google and co become a serious threat. No doubt with some seriously gay restrictions, like how many documents can be open, number of fonts or something.
What bothers me is that there seems to be a definite trend to try and move away from Microsoft controlled solutions to ones either controlled or assisted by Google.
Are we so sure that Google will always be nice? Do we want our online office and email to become dependant on yet another single vendor?
Ok, I don't know anyone but google who could help beat the Microsoft monopoly on office services, but if they do become the dominant player, who's to say that things won't change in the google camp? Anyone who gains power rarely likes to give it up, and is rarely happy for other people to threaten their position.
I'm short on alternatives here, but it's a concern I think a few more people should be pondering.
likely it would have been a specific build for the testers only that was leaked.
Insiders doing it would probably have access to a great many test builds, not just the one sent to the externals. However insiders would also have fabulously well paid jobs and severe contractual penalties for doing something this stupid. Not the kind of people likely to risk all for a leaked test build.
Besides, what would be the career consequences for someone being denounced by Microsoft for doing a thing like that? The closed source OS world, Microsoft in particular, are not forgiving of such things. Never working in the field again would spring to mind.
I'd go for someone being over confident about security and letting another person steal it by neglect, rather than intentionally.
If by some bizarre chance is was deliberate, then they're so stupid they need to be culled from the industry anyway.
Here's a translation of the idea:
"we didn't realise how much money could be made using and controlling the internet, and we don't like all this unprofitable freedom that's happening."
Its so obvious. Also, so doomed to failure. The most they could do is end up with two networks, the 'clean' (hah) neo conservative approved internet, and a much more interesting underground internet where all the fun things happen.
Hmm, I kinda dig that last part.
You sir, are very correct.
I cannot deny that it's sad that I do this. However I am indeed stuck without a job for the next year while I write up, and I'm bored.
I view friday and saturday as 'have fun on slashdot' nights. because I can't afford much else. What's irritating is that I keep making comments that get modded up because, dammit, slashdot has such interesting debates.
what amazes me is how many people have taken the bait here. I mean, it's quite obviously utter nonsense. Do real religious people talk like that?
This has to be a wind up.
and hookers that look nice from a distance are actually crusty pensioners.
Of all the scenes in 1984 (the film, not book), that one conveyed the decay of the society more than any other methinks. I also consider it one of richard burtons finest performances, but I'm probably in a minority there.
there you go, expecting a slashdotter to rtfa. Shame on you...
well, you were right. I'd have gone for redundant as well, but only because there's no tag 'dorkish'
what can I say, it's been a year and I've never deviated from excellent karma. Time for a change.
It's really hard work though, I've been at it all day, and not a change in sight.
gjk hjk jk
Knowing a possible mechanism is important, yes, but that's a long way from having a workable implementation of the method that is useful in a technological sense.
it's not that silly. They saw a way to make money from the current delusion that data can be unbreakably secured.
The only way to secure data is to make it so absolutely no-one but the authorised people have access to it. You can keep data secure physically if you isolate it from any form of access. However information does not work well if isolated like that, information has to be shareable to be useful, otherwise its just dead data, worthless bits.
I have several pieces of information that are unhackable. That's because they are written to dvds in a non encrypted form, but the dvds themselves are stashed away where no-one can find them.
That is alas also a delusion, because if I died tomorrow no doubt someone could find them. However, so long as I'm around to protect them, they are safe.
That's not a good way to think if you realise that there is money in pseudo security. Paranoia of customers can be a source of income, and a wise businessman will take advantage of that whenever possible.
oh? Was it Lint he worked on then? I'm confused, I always thought it was him who worked on Splint
heh
I'm not too keen on Stallmans ongoing political agenda, but I cannot imagine an open source world without his keystone contributions.
His implementation of Lint (Splint) has reduced me to nervous wreck on more than one occasion, but it did improve my C coding skills.
About the only thing he wrote that I don't use is Emacs. I can appreciate its quality, and have taught its usage in the classroom, but I prefer Vim.
Thing is, politics aside, the guy is one awesome hacker, with few equals and fewer betters. Ok most of those achievements are in the past, but that can't be used against him unless the person making the argument has first exceeded his output.
Cool, the perfect first post. Blessedly free of insight, whilst at the same time vaguely insulting. That and moderated to troll within ten seconds.
I've never managed that before, another slashdot first for me.
what? The readership there wasn't good enough, you had to come here for some more pats on the back for your insight?
Here, have an ego cookie...
If only it were nice and simple...
I'm perhaps getting myself confused. He actually said that you couldn't trace a line back from us to the dinosaurs directly. You had to go past them to find a common ancestor. That's why they aren't more prominent in the book.
So, you're right.
it's probably quite easy to hack a satellite, if you have signalling devices capable of reaching them. Those are easy to come by.
Satellites are not, with the possible exception of military satts, built to withstand a concerted hacking episode. They're expensive enough as it is. Just outfitting with basic, robust, telecoms repeater technology is difficult enough.
You might find that satellites start becoming more robust to hacking. However since the trend is to move away from large high cost installations to small cheap satellite constellations and high altitude autonomous aircraft, it's likely that they will stay just as easy to crack. It could be cheaper to turn off a compromised satellite then to attempt to make it so attacks (which constantly evolve) can be resisted.
At my university we build robots out of lego to test pathfinding software.
It's cheap, and it can house the motors/circuit boards and stick together under a bit of stress, its perfect.
Meccano is good, but it can take longer to assemble. That's more of use for robots that need to withstand a lot more stress, such as arms.
I used Caldera Linux too at one point, and liked it. I stopped because Red Hat Linux turned out to be better for my needs. Caldera Linux had some pretty good developers who helped advance Linux into the corporate field.
Caldera was a bit different back then though, McBride wasn't part of the company back then for one thing.
I thought that in 'The Ancestors Tale' Dawkins said that dinosaurs belonged to a completely different lineage and were unimportant in the evolution of Mammals
Perhaps Evolutionary Algorithms might also need to be undermined, since while they are part of mathematics, they were created in response to our understanding of evolution and nature.
I'm not sure whether pure mathematicians would consider the EA to be a proper member of their field. The outcome of an algorithm is rarely predictable, with randomness and approximation being the cornerstones of the art. They do borrow from, and are therefore related to, other fields, like physics (simulated annealing), and economics (Multi-Objective Optimisation).
Still, they are, in my opinion, something that would have to be abandoned/rejected if one were to adopt a short sighted creationist view.
Here's a funny thing. If fundamentalists got their way and we rejected evolution and other sciences in favour of religious explanations, the doctrine of creationism would probably lead into the inevitability of extinction.
The T-rex didn't evolve into birds, no-one said that.
they are distantly related because they likely share a common ancestor is all.