I know I'm very late to this discussion, but here goes anyway--
I work in a non-scientific role for the American Association for Cancer Research, so I'm pretty close to most of the research that goes on nowadays. There is no conspiracy to hide a real cure to cancer because cancer isn't one disease-- it's over 200 different diseases. They all involve irregular cell growth, but the similarities pretty much end there. The causes and mechanisms of cancers are many and varied and so the idea that there can be "a cure" for all cancers is ridiculous.
There is one thing-- not a conspiracy, but a sad fact. As government research funding gets gutted in the interest of "fiscal responsibility" or some such nonsense, prevention research is suffering. Basic research into human physiology, biochemistry, and other subjects may not yield results for decades. Neither a corporation nor a philanthropic billionaire wants to wait to see the fruits of their efforts. That's where the government is in a unique position to take the reins and do this kind of long-term thing.
The AACR is a key partner in the Rally for Medical Research. This is an alliance of over 100 organizations that are about all sorts of conditions and diseases-- not just cancer. They sponsor rallies and "Hill Days" to bend the ears of representatives in Washington, DC. I highly encourage anyone who is genuinely interested to get involved.
Also, if you're looking for information on where we are in the fight against cancer from a reliable source, check out http://cancerprogressreport.or... We publish one of these every year at this time. The 2014 report will be released tomorrow and gives a great overview as to where progress has been made and where we are maybe losing ground and why (if we know).
Perhaps it could be said that all the money in FOSS development made developers used to a higher standard of living, but that assumes that getting paid necessarily negates non-monetary rewards. That's a flimsy argument and doesn't bear very close scrutiny. It also assumes traditional scarcity rules have taken over the software industry. If anything, artificial scarcity is even harder to maintain during harder financial times.
This is nothing but a re-hash of Bill Gates' screed against the Homebrew Computer Club about how good software will never be created without paid programmers. It was wrong in then, and it's still wrong.
Two and three-- Looks like the obvious train doesn't stop in their town.
Seriously-- web usage is a perfect mirror of who we are inasmuch as it shows what's important to us. Don't blame the mirror for the image it shows because you don't like it. Fix the subject. Or (if you're into short-term solutions) get rid of the mirror. In the latter case, though, don't be surprised if what's in the mirror doesn't go away.
Okay-- I'm into seriously over-extended metaphor mode. Time to stop.
I was a laser and electro-optics major in 1982 and back then it was explained to us that pointing a laser at any aircraft was a felony. Of course, the lasers we had back then were considerably less portable (and we had to carry them uphill, both ways, to classes), but my point it that this law has been on the books for a long time.
I can't believe some people would be so shallow as to only love robots who conform to a pre-conceived idea of beauty. Some of us have always loved ours regardless of appearances. Even if they were the old-fashioned "square-headed" variety.
James Randi is putting his talents where it really matters!
I want to see him take on the tubes vs. solid-state thing next. Oh-- and those black ebony (teak?) hockey puck things they sell for $100 a pop that are supposed to improve the acoustics of your room by placing them wherever.
If I were a CS student right now, I would do everything I could-- courses, hacking through books, internships, anything-- to learn and get as much experience as I could on System 390/zSeries mainframes, and related technologies (CICS, IMS, DB2, and yes even COBOL). There is a huge mainframe brain-drain (buzzword potential here) with a large number of mainframers reaching retirement age, no-one to replace them, and no signs of mainframe usage stopping.
It's been the best-kept secret in IT for 10 years, but the mainstream media is even taking notice as this artice demonstrates.
Just this past May I went to the International DB2 User's Group North American (IDUG)conference in Denver, and by far the most gainfully employed independent consultants we the Mainframers. I know for a fact that where I live (Gartford, CT, USA area) there's a huge demand for mainframe personnel at pretty much every level. But even in relatively remote parts (I met a mainframer who works for a trucking company in Montana) there's plenty to do.
Admittedly I'm taking a purely practical (not to say mercenary) view of the purpose of education but, if that's a big concern for you, I'd go for it. I'm a DB2 on Unix DBA and if I were ever to change, I know where I'd go in a heartbeat-- even though I happen to love what I'm doing.
Does anyone remember that when Microsoft decided to settle out-of-court with Caldera over the Windows/DR-DOS fiasco, that the terms were (apart from a relatively miniscule cash payment) kept secret? Maybe this was part of the plan since then-- that Caldera would, after acquiring SCO (which may very well have been in the works at the time) would turn on Linux with IP complaints. In the first Halloween Documents, IP is suggested as a strategy against Linux adoption. If Microsoft were to bring the suit, no one would believe it. But if Microsoft were to ask another company to act on its behalf...
That's why they went after IBM-- arguably the one company that most legetimized Linux in the eyes of corporate types and probably the only one which could have done so on its own, if it wanted to. (Cue "Faust" overture).
Maybe this was all part of the secret deal that Microsoft and (then) Caldera had as part of their settlement two years ago. In the original Haloween Documents, Microsoft mentions using IP as a potential weapon against Free Software. However, if Microsoft were to pursue this line of attack, it would be exposing itself directly to more accusations of anti-competitive practices. However, if it could use some sort of leverage to get SCO/Caldera to do it for them-- especially at a time when Microsoft is making somewhat half-hearted gestures toward cooperating with Free and Open Source software projects-- it would be a different story. By SCO, a Unix vendor, attacking BSD, OS-X, Linux and who knows what else, it looks more like infighting in the Unix world and allows Microsoft to spin the whole thing as just another example of the kind of fragmentation that has hindered Unix in the past.
Mind you, a lawsuit doesn't have to be succesful-- or even viable-- in order to disuade people from investing in a product. Even the threat of possibly being sued would be enough-- no matter how specious the case.
Back in my bad old days as a SQL Server admin, I saw an ad for a "SQL Server User Group" meeting. It was at the Microsoft local office, which didn't surprise me. Less than an equal exchange of ideas, it was more a talk on a specific topic related to SQL Server. It was catered and they had some giveaways.
Technically, it wasn't too great. My experience with Microsoft is that they give technical seminars on their products based on how they're supposed to work, rather than how they really work. Case in point: we asked about a specific memory allocation feature in SQL Server 7 that a number of the 20 or so people in the room couldn't get to work the way it was supposed to work. Well, he kept saying, "The official Microsoft position is that it works as designed." Finally, after some great amount of poressure from everyone in the room he said, "Okay, I'm going to cover my Microsoft badge and say yes, it has a lot of problems. Now I'll uncover my badge and say it works as designed."
Overall, though, it was a good presentation on a little-used feature of SQL Server. We also, inadvertently, found out why it was little-used. The best part was, by far, the ability to network with other SQL Sever admins from other companies and compare notes on strategies and work-arounds. All products have bugs and work-arounds; the problem is that Microsoft staunchly refuses to acknowledge them in their official literature. That's why there are independant support forums (like the excellent http://www.swynk.com) to deal with them.
So the user groups are a good idea-- even if (or especially if) they don't exactly fit Microsoft's vision of what they want them to accomplish.
I'm currently going through the prep books for SAIR certification. They offer all the Level I prep books for $150.00 for anyone going to LWE in New York (see you there!).
Formal training might work better for sysadmins than for coders. Coding is a lot like chess: Many people can learn the rules, but it takes a different talent (and a good amount of experience) to play a decent game. Administration is more like masonry. With only a basic amount of knowledge, one can be at least useful to a staff of more experienced sysadmins and, in the process, become more experienced gradually.
In other words, formal training like SAIR can make you useful as a sysadmin (albeit in a limited way). It may not work that way for coders (as I suspect it does not), but the certification is not for coders.
No offense to all the great hackers out there, but as GNU/Linux takes off in the server space, we're going to need schleps like me-- who can code but it isn't where we spend our lives-- to set up and care for the machines.
"Ach, Captain, the server canna take any more processors-- we need tae go tae the Alpha platform for more power!"
I have this book and consider it an excellent introductory book to Perl for sysadmins. While some of the more ghod-like among us might see it as too rudimentary, lesser mortals might find it useful.
I have seen the book become an invaluable aid for Windoze admins who had no idea that such power could be had for free. There are more in-depth books (most notably Dave Roth's excellent Perl on Win32 books), but this book does a good job of saying "Hey, look what you can do with this!".
And remember, Perl's role on Windoze (as I see it) is mostly subversive. It's a great way to introduce more computer professionals to Open Source software in an environment they're familiar with.
Notice of patent is hereby given that Vapor Technologies now owns the trademark and all intellectual property connected with the term Vaporware(tm) and all its variations (including, but not limited to, Airware(tm), Brochureware(tm), and the British variant, Vapourware(tm)).
Vaporware(tm) is defined as "Any product, program, project, service, website, or any other related technology or method which is announced by a company which has not, at the time of the announcement, been fully implemented, shipped, developed, deployed, debugged, and accounted for with three full years worth of P&L statements to prove the existence of said thing."
Any company with a product which matches our definition of Vaporware(tm) will have to pay Vapor Technologies(r) 10% of their net income as royalties for using the Vaporware(tm) concept.
In addition, any marketing materials for said Vapourware-Certified Product(r) are subject to a tarrif against top-line revenues according to the following Fee Schedule:
Four-Color brochures - $.10/copy
Whitepapers - $.05 per page per copy
Web-based publishing - $15,000 setup fee, $.07/hit for the first 1,000,000 hits, $.05/hit afterward
Press release - $10,000 for each agency which reports it
(other fees and chargables as necessary)
In addition, Vapor Technologies offers the following fee-based services to help promote your Vaporware-Certified Product(r):
"Garden Group First Glance"(sic) - $750,000 per paragraph (payable to Micros~1 Public Relations department)
ZeeDeeNet Positive Review - $2M
ZeeDeeNet Negative Review about competing product - $3M (higher if competing product is also Vaporware-Certified(r))
Negative Review of your product (Short-Seller Special) - Call for Price
Ron Moody special - Have one of the most respected and oft-quoted technology experts write your review! (25% discount on review rate)
Any or all of the above options (except short-seller special) can be paid for using our convenient, Equity-Stake finance plan!
The important thing to remember about BMI, ASCAP and SESAC is that they are organizations which directly represent the songwriter or publisher (very often these two are effectively the same). Also, ASCAP and BMI are government-regulated non-profit organizations. What this means is that all the proceeds (after operating expenses) go to the songwriters and publishers (try getting the record companies to agree to that deal!). I know SESAC is not so restricted, but it must be competetive with ASCAP and BMI to attract anyone.
ASCAP, BMI and SESAC exist for the artists and publishers and are the only effective way an independant (like me) can collect money from any radio stations that might play my songs. Even college radio stations have to pony up and can generate some significant revenue for an independant artist.
Most important of all, ASCAP, BMI and SESAC provide a stream of revenue to the songwriters that the record companies do not have anything to do with and they cannot touch. By trying to use DMCA (or anything else) as a ruse to collect what is not rightly theirs, they are really attacking the only pot they don't already have their filthy little hands in.
This is especially important to songwriters who don't perform their own music. When someone buys a Celine Dion album (Ghod help them!), the record company (and, theoretically, Celine Dion) get paid. What the songwriter gets paid can be downright miniscule for many resons (contract terms, etc.) but when it gets played on a radio, the sogwriter gets paid, and the record company (and Celine) get precisely squat.
The best service you can do to the community is to release your code under the GPL. Ant the best service you can do to yourself is not to ask RMS what he thinks about your project.
Demonstrations are supposed to be shows of support for some cause, person, ideal, whatever. The idea that people were being recruited that were looking to be arrested is comical. It shows how activism in this country has degenerated into spiteful, self-aggrandizement.
The local news radio broadcast carried a so-called "activist" taunting a police officer with things like, "Have you ever felt love?" That shows the simplistic outlook of so many of these demonstrators. Haven't we gotten past the od "Off the pigs" mentality yet?
There were also many groups deliberately blocking traffic. I don't know about anyone else, but if I see people blocking traffic my first thought is "Get these assholes off the street so I can get to work/home/South Street/wherever." I can't imagine anyone saying, "WOW, they're blocking traffic! I wonder if I can join their cause-- whatever it is."
And it doesn't matter whether I agree with their cause or not; thanks to the sensationalistic actions of some, I'll never know what they were protesting. Could have been any one of a number of things. I might have even joined them.
I live and work in the Philly area and I find it a thriving tech town. The suburbs are crawling with tech companies-- both well-known names (Like Micros~1, SAP, Unisys, etc) as well as plenty of small and medium-sized companies, web-design firms, and of course, the requisite slew of consulting firms and headhunters.
Also significant is the thriving arts community to balance out all of those left-brain functions we use. Performing and fine arts (both mainstream and local) are plentiful and easily accessible. Big college town (technical and non), lots of good, cheap food, reasonable housing, good public trans LOTS OF COFFEE!! (sorry, had an AOL moment there).
Not bad for an American city.
And a really active LUG and two (count 'em) two area Debian Society chapters. http://plug.nothinbut.net
It's pretty indicative of what PBS in general, and Cringely in particular, os prone to do: Over-simplyfy an issues as a form of self-aggrandizement.
I'm sure the folks at Jane's, many of whom have spent their entire lives looking at 'defence' technology (including cryptography and related sciences) are qualified to determine which of us Slashdot readers have a clue and which do not.
In fact, one might go so far as to say that Jane's staff are more qualified pass judgement than a low-rent, over-liberal journalist who doesn't know the difference between "censorship" and "open professional review."
I've been hearing the rants against centralized software for a while. quite frankly, I don't think it'll ever be all software. The Open Source economic model, if it is successful, will always be superior in both strength and agility to any closed, tightly-held system. The argument of centralized vs. non-centralized applications is really just an extension of the Open-Source vs. Closed-Source debate. Micros~1 (and others) already have stood behind a proposal to allow a software vendor the right to remotely disable any and all applications that the software company "owns" for pretty much any reason (http://209.207.224.40/articles/99/06/01/1642234.s html). Imagine how easy it would be if the software in question were actually on a machine owned by the company. So we have, for the software/computer company, a complete centralization of its control of software. Fortunately (hopefully) I don't think market forces will allow this to happen. It's all very well (and understandable) for a corporation using these products to want centralized control of their employees software, etc. It's quite another matter for these same corporations to allow their software/computer vendors to turn off their machines or software at will-- effectively allowing them to be held hostage by their vendors. Also, I wonder how many end users will trust all of their most valuable applications to such a centralized system which could also hold their documents hostage. Perhaps many. But, at least, the popularity of Open Source among users as well as more nerdy types indiccates that it won't be a complete sell-out by society.
Slashdot Mirror
I know I'm very late to this discussion, but here goes anyway-- I work in a non-scientific role for the American Association for Cancer Research, so I'm pretty close to most of the research that goes on nowadays. There is no conspiracy to hide a real cure to cancer because cancer isn't one disease-- it's over 200 different diseases. They all involve irregular cell growth, but the similarities pretty much end there. The causes and mechanisms of cancers are many and varied and so the idea that there can be "a cure" for all cancers is ridiculous. There is one thing-- not a conspiracy, but a sad fact. As government research funding gets gutted in the interest of "fiscal responsibility" or some such nonsense, prevention research is suffering. Basic research into human physiology, biochemistry, and other subjects may not yield results for decades. Neither a corporation nor a philanthropic billionaire wants to wait to see the fruits of their efforts. That's where the government is in a unique position to take the reins and do this kind of long-term thing. The AACR is a key partner in the Rally for Medical Research. This is an alliance of over 100 organizations that are about all sorts of conditions and diseases-- not just cancer. They sponsor rallies and "Hill Days" to bend the ears of representatives in Washington, DC. I highly encourage anyone who is genuinely interested to get involved. Also, if you're looking for information on where we are in the fight against cancer from a reliable source, check out http://cancerprogressreport.or... We publish one of these every year at this time. The 2014 report will be released tomorrow and gives a great overview as to where progress has been made and where we are maybe losing ground and why (if we know).
This is nothing but a re-hash of Bill Gates' screed against the Homebrew Computer Club about how good software will never be created without paid programmers. It was wrong in then, and it's still wrong.
One-- You seriously need to grow a pair. Fast.
Two and three-- Looks like the obvious train doesn't stop in their town.
Seriously-- web usage is a perfect mirror of who we are inasmuch as it shows what's important to us. Don't blame the mirror for the image it shows because you don't like it. Fix the subject. Or (if you're into short-term solutions) get rid of the mirror. In the latter case, though, don't be surprised if what's in the mirror doesn't go away.
Okay-- I'm into seriously over-extended metaphor mode. Time to stop.
I was a laser and electro-optics major in 1982 and back then it was explained to us that pointing a laser at any aircraft was a felony. Of course, the lasers we had back then were considerably less portable (and we had to carry them uphill, both ways, to classes), but my point it that this law has been on the books for a long time.
I can't believe some people would be so shallow as to only love robots who conform to a pre-conceived idea of beauty. Some of us have always loved ours regardless of appearances. Even if they were the old-fashioned "square-headed" variety.
Insensitive clods!
James Randi is putting his talents where it really matters!
I want to see him take on the tubes vs. solid-state thing next. Oh-- and those black ebony (teak?) hockey puck things they sell for $100 a pop that are supposed to improve the acoustics of your room by placing them wherever.
If I were a CS student right now, I would do everything I could-- courses, hacking through books, internships, anything-- to learn and get as much experience as I could on System 390/zSeries mainframes, and related technologies (CICS, IMS, DB2, and yes even COBOL). There is a huge mainframe brain-drain (buzzword potential here) with a large number of mainframers reaching retirement age, no-one to replace them, and no signs of mainframe usage stopping.
It's been the best-kept secret in IT for 10 years, but the mainstream media is even taking notice as this artice demonstrates.
Just this past May I went to the International DB2 User's Group North American (IDUG)conference in Denver, and by far the most gainfully employed independent consultants we the Mainframers. I know for a fact that where I live (Gartford, CT, USA area) there's a huge demand for mainframe personnel at pretty much every level. But even in relatively remote parts (I met a mainframer who works for a trucking company in Montana) there's plenty to do.
Admittedly I'm taking a purely practical (not to say mercenary) view of the purpose of education but, if that's a big concern for you, I'd go for it. I'm a DB2 on Unix DBA and if I were ever to change, I know where I'd go in a heartbeat-- even though I happen to love what I'm doing.
That's why they went after IBM-- arguably the one company that most legetimized Linux in the eyes of corporate types and probably the only one which could have done so on its own, if it wanted to. (Cue "Faust" overture).
Maybe this was all part of the secret deal that Microsoft and (then) Caldera had as part of their settlement two years ago. In the original Haloween Documents, Microsoft mentions using IP as a potential weapon against Free Software. However, if Microsoft were to pursue this line of attack, it would be exposing itself directly to more accusations of anti-competitive practices. However, if it could use some sort of leverage to get SCO/Caldera to do it for them-- especially at a time when Microsoft is making somewhat half-hearted gestures toward cooperating with Free and Open Source software projects-- it would be a different story. By SCO, a Unix vendor, attacking BSD, OS-X, Linux and who knows what else, it looks more like infighting in the Unix world and allows Microsoft to spin the whole thing as just another example of the kind of fragmentation that has hindered Unix in the past.
Mind you, a lawsuit doesn't have to be succesful-- or even viable-- in order to disuade people from investing in a product. Even the threat of possibly being sued would be enough-- no matter how specious the case.
Technically, it wasn't too great. My experience with Microsoft is that they give technical seminars on their products based on how they're supposed to work, rather than how they really work. Case in point: we asked about a specific memory allocation feature in SQL Server 7 that a number of the 20 or so people in the room couldn't get to work the way it was supposed to work. Well, he kept saying, "The official Microsoft position is that it works as designed." Finally, after some great amount of poressure from everyone in the room he said, "Okay, I'm going to cover my Microsoft badge and say yes, it has a lot of problems. Now I'll uncover my badge and say it works as designed."
Overall, though, it was a good presentation on a little-used feature of SQL Server. We also, inadvertently, found out why it was little-used. The best part was, by far, the ability to network with other SQL Sever admins from other companies and compare notes on strategies and work-arounds. All products have bugs and work-arounds; the problem is that Microsoft staunchly refuses to acknowledge them in their official literature. That's why there are independant support forums (like the excellent http://www.swynk.com) to deal with them.
So the user groups are a good idea-- even if (or especially if) they don't exactly fit Microsoft's vision of what they want them to accomplish.
Formal training might work better for sysadmins than for coders. Coding is a lot like chess: Many people can learn the rules, but it takes a different talent (and a good amount of experience) to play a decent game. Administration is more like masonry. With only a basic amount of knowledge, one can be at least useful to a staff of more experienced sysadmins and, in the process, become more experienced gradually.
In other words, formal training like SAIR can make you useful as a sysadmin (albeit in a limited way). It may not work that way for coders (as I suspect it does not), but the certification is not for coders.
No offense to all the great hackers out there, but as GNU/Linux takes off in the server space, we're going to need schleps like me-- who can code but it isn't where we spend our lives-- to set up and care for the machines.
"Ach, Captain, the server canna take any more processors-- we need tae go tae the Alpha platform for more power!"
I have seen the book become an invaluable aid for Windoze admins who had no idea that such power could be had for free. There are more in-depth books (most notably Dave Roth's excellent Perl on Win32 books), but this book does a good job of saying "Hey, look what you can do with this!".
And remember, Perl's role on Windoze (as I see it) is mostly subversive. It's a great way to introduce more computer professionals to Open Source software in an environment they're familiar with.
Notice of patent is hereby given that Vapor Technologies now owns the trademark and all intellectual property connected with the term Vaporware(tm) and all its variations (including, but not limited to, Airware(tm), Brochureware(tm), and the British variant, Vapourware(tm)).
Vaporware(tm) is defined as "Any product, program, project, service, website, or any other related technology or method which is announced by a company which has not, at the time of the announcement, been fully implemented, shipped, developed, deployed, debugged, and accounted for with three full years worth of P&L statements to prove the existence of said thing."
Any company with a product which matches our definition of Vaporware(tm) will have to pay Vapor Technologies(r) 10% of their net income as royalties for using the Vaporware(tm) concept.
In addition, any marketing materials for said Vapourware-Certified Product(r) are subject to a tarrif against top-line revenues according to the following Fee Schedule:
Four-Color brochures - $.10/copy
Whitepapers - $.05 per page per copy
Web-based publishing - $15,000 setup fee, $.07/hit for the first 1,000,000 hits, $.05/hit afterward
Press release - $10,000 for each agency which reports it
(other fees and chargables as necessary)
In addition, Vapor Technologies offers the following fee-based services to help promote your Vaporware-Certified Product(r):
"Garden Group First Glance"(sic) - $750,000 per paragraph (payable to Micros~1 Public Relations department)
ZeeDeeNet Positive Review - $2M
ZeeDeeNet Negative Review about competing product - $3M (higher if competing product is also Vaporware-Certified(r))
Negative Review of your product (Short-Seller Special) - Call for Price
Ron Moody special - Have one of the most respected and oft-quoted technology experts write your review! (25% discount on review rate)
Any or all of the above options (except short-seller special) can be paid for using our convenient, Equity-Stake finance plan!
The important thing to remember about BMI, ASCAP and SESAC is that they are organizations which directly represent the songwriter or publisher (very often these two are effectively the same). Also, ASCAP and BMI are government-regulated non-profit organizations. What this means is that all the proceeds (after operating expenses) go to the songwriters and publishers (try getting the record companies to agree to that deal!). I know SESAC is not so restricted, but it must be competetive with ASCAP and BMI to attract anyone.
ASCAP, BMI and SESAC exist for the artists and publishers and are the only effective way an independant (like me) can collect money from any radio stations that might play my songs. Even college radio stations have to pony up and can generate some significant revenue for an independant artist.
Most important of all, ASCAP, BMI and SESAC provide a stream of revenue to the songwriters that the record companies do not have anything to do with and they cannot touch. By trying to use DMCA (or anything else) as a ruse to collect what is not rightly theirs, they are really attacking the only pot they don't already have their filthy little hands in.
This is especially important to songwriters who don't perform their own music. When someone buys a Celine Dion album (Ghod help them!), the record company (and, theoretically, Celine Dion) get paid. What the songwriter gets paid can be downright miniscule for many resons (contract terms, etc.) but when it gets played on a radio, the sogwriter gets paid, and the record company (and Celine) get precisely squat.
The best service you can do to the community is to release your code under the GPL. Ant the best service you can do to yourself is not to ask RMS what he thinks about your project.
Demonstrations are supposed to be shows of support for some cause, person, ideal, whatever. The idea that people were being recruited that were looking to be arrested is comical. It shows how activism in this country has degenerated into spiteful, self-aggrandizement.
The local news radio broadcast carried a so-called "activist" taunting a police officer with things like, "Have you ever felt love?" That shows the simplistic outlook of so many of these demonstrators. Haven't we gotten past the od "Off the pigs" mentality yet?
There were also many groups deliberately blocking traffic. I don't know about anyone else, but if I see people blocking traffic my first thought is "Get these assholes off the street so I can get to work/home/South Street/wherever." I can't imagine anyone saying, "WOW, they're blocking traffic! I wonder if I can join their cause-- whatever it is."
And it doesn't matter whether I agree with their cause or not; thanks to the sensationalistic actions of some, I'll never know what they were protesting. Could have been any one of a number of things. I might have even joined them.
I live and work in the Philly area and I find it a thriving tech town. The suburbs are crawling with tech companies-- both well-known names (Like Micros~1, SAP, Unisys, etc) as well as plenty of small and medium-sized companies, web-design firms, and of course, the requisite slew of consulting firms and headhunters.
Also significant is the thriving arts community to balance out all of those left-brain functions we use. Performing and fine arts (both mainstream and local) are plentiful and easily accessible. Big college town (technical and non), lots of good, cheap food, reasonable housing, good public trans LOTS OF COFFEE!! (sorry, had an AOL moment there).
Not bad for an American city.
And a really active LUG and two (count 'em) two area Debian Society chapters. http://plug.nothinbut.net
...an advert for a service than a legit technical article.
Simple formula for NT DoS attack:
1. Boot machine
2. Wait
Machine will crash in short order.
Actually, not specific at all.
It's pretty indicative of what PBS in general, and Cringely in particular, os prone to do: Over-simplyfy an issues as a form of self-aggrandizement.
I'm sure the folks at Jane's, many of whom have spent their entire lives looking at 'defence' technology (including cryptography and related sciences) are qualified to determine which of us Slashdot readers have a clue and which do not.
In fact, one might go so far as to say that Jane's staff are more qualified pass judgement than a low-rent, over-liberal journalist who doesn't know the difference between "censorship" and "open professional review."
I've been hearing the rants against centralized software for a while. quite frankly, I don't think it'll ever be all software. The Open Source economic model, if it is successful, will always be superior in both strength and agility to any closed, tightly-held system. The argument of centralized vs. non-centralized applications is really just an extension of the Open-Source vs. Closed-Source debate. Micros~1 (and others) already have stood behind a proposal to allow a software vendor the right to remotely disable any and all applications that the software company "owns" for pretty much any reason (http://209.207.224.40/articles/99/06/01/1642234.s html). Imagine how easy it would be if the software in question were actually on a machine owned by the company. So we have, for the software/computer company, a complete centralization of its control of software. Fortunately (hopefully) I don't think market forces will allow this to happen. It's all very well (and understandable) for a corporation using these products to want centralized control of their employees software, etc. It's quite another matter for these same corporations to allow their software/computer vendors to turn off their machines or software at will-- effectively allowing them to be held hostage by their vendors. Also, I wonder how many end users will trust all of their most valuable applications to such a centralized system which could also hold their documents hostage. Perhaps many. But, at least, the popularity of Open Source among users as well as more nerdy types indiccates that it won't be a complete sell-out by society.