Ok, I'm going to try to reply without getting flamed, but here's my take on this.
I RTFA, but I don't know if this is the same copying protection scheme where a person would be limitted to burning all of the CDs they want from the original, but would prevent the copies from themselves being copied. It's probably not, but stick with me a moment.
While one can argue against copyright as it is now, and information wanting to be free, but considering Fair Use as it is now, such a scheme like that makes sense. The big problem with previous schemes is that it locks out Fair Use.
I purchased NIN - With Teeth. I'm an honest consumer, and I pay for products I find of a good enough quality to deserve my consumer dollars. (I actually own pay for a RHEL license, for instance, even though I can legally get linux for free.)
Now, I immediately made 3 copies of this CD. I ripped the highest quality MP3s to my harddrive (I hate when CD's get scratched, and songs are destroyed), and I burned 2 CD-R copies of the CD, one in MP3 format for my DVD/MP3 entertainment system, and 1 for my car in CDA format.
My copying isn't to give the CD to my friends, but to store my nice new CD away, and use "disposable copies" in the 3 places where I often listen to music: my computer, my entertainment system, and my car. I've only made copies that extend my fair use.
Now, if there were a DRM out there that let me make all these copies, as many times as I want, but just prevented me from 'schoolyard piracy', that's perfectly acceptable for me. Of course, that's considering that I'm free to use the content on any OS I want (linux), in any format I want (my brand of CD-R's, not some locked up high price brand), and that none of my listening preferences or other personal information is sent over the Internet to unlock the files on every play. My privacy is absolutely paramount.
If there is a DRM out there that can accomplish this, I would welcome it with open arms. Of course, I do agree with opening up those copyrights, making them opt-in, and for much shorter tersm. But, if NIN wants to not give their songs away, and use a charge only system, at least for a short term like 20 years, that's ok with me because I'm willing to pay for such excellent music. AFAIK, I can own this CD and listen to it for the rest of my life. I think my $10 (marked down at an independant retailer, not some mega-chain) was a fair trade for this content.
As always, I'm on the lookout for good Creative Commons licensed music as well. Sensable copyright and digital rights management doesn't necessarily mean that you are in league with the RIAA/MPAA, nor does it mean you can't support both it and copyleft. The **AA sense of Fair Use is warped, and they're just wanting the equivilant of a nuclear warhead for DRM.
Didn't RTFA, but I don't support any form of vigilante justice. The simple reason? They're wasting valuable time. While they're playing games hacking into a sever to post "Haha, I rooted a scam site," they could have just coded some simple firewall rules that anybody could use, and simply publish a list of scam ips and domains on a daily/hourly basis. If they want to help, code something to prevent such sites from showing up at all, like introducing software to recognize pages that are asking for personal information, and rejecting their loading if they aren't already in the user's pre-approved list of legit sites.
Problem solved... legally. It's already done for spam blocking, though noticibly slower. Spyware tools already have the simple functionality to use modified Windows host files.
Fact is, whoever is doing this, they just wanted press, and to be "l33t", and get some type of hero status, which Slashdot happily gave them. What they aren't doing is making any difference. Those scam sites were most likely already hacked to begin with, and the perp is just moving from one to another daily.
Self regulation isn't about playing cowboys and indians on the net. It's about empowering other individuals with tools so they can regulate their own experience, not so you can regulate it indiscriminantly for them by attacking others.
Vigilantes are not solutions. Not only do they answer to no one, but if they are the solution, what happens when they get bored hacking scam sites? Obviously those making money will have far more patiences than them. It's just a matter of time, unless an effort and solution is really organized legitimately, so that it becomes perpetual.
This isn't too bad. But, I'll be more impressed when I see Gates caught with an iMac while on vacation to edit his home movies with. Or, someone spying Steve Balmer working out listening to an iPod. Forget necessity, that's explainable, like why Hotmail ran linux servers. Show me an example of clear preference, and you've got an MS film clip that'll make CNN for about a week.
The question should start becoming at this point whether or not e-mail is long past its due? Spam, virii, and scams are the super-majority of inboxes now. We keep fighting the problem, but for what? I don't know about many of you, but 99% of the e-mail I do want to read is from an automated sender telling me my finances or system status or such.
These could easily be handled more securely by SSL encrypted RSS feeds. The other 1% are people who I already know how to contact outside of e-mail.
I think most (probably not all, you always find some) realize that gopher has long since retired. Maybe it's e-mail's time to retire and move from the old dot-com "push content" pipe dream that was only realized as a reality for e-mail, and move to a pull content method (read: unspammable without consent) like personal RSS feeds and GPG/PGP encrypted messages. In that model, you would simply subscribe to all your friend's feeds, and when your system detected a message encrypted to you, it would display it. Or, for automated services, a bank could use SSL RSS feeds to notify customers of immediate issues with their accounts. Certainly this is infinitely more secure than plaintext e-mail that could be a phisher or read by anyone along the line.
Dim the magic? What's this Harry Potter crap? They could have at least said that Bittorrent was dimming the FORCE! Star Wars fans might have at least paid attention to this news then. "My God, Bittorrent can dim THE FORCE!"
Hmmm, I think I just stumbled across the plot of Star Wars VII: Attack of the Force Dimming Sithtorrents!
Being American (me ducks the flames), I honestly don't know what a fault is. I've never heard of it. I'm not saying we don't get them, but you all seem to know about them or have at least heard of them. It's just not that way here, or at least locally here.
As for broadband, I have even more options. I can go dial-up, cable (what I have), DSL, or (what few others seem to have) Wireless Tower (1Mbps wireless broadcast from center of small town).
I do hear that Europe has SMS. Well, we've had text messaging for a long time, though not SMS. But, the US isn't a big text messager. The difference between the US and Europe is that we get unlimitted minutes (yes, I can talk to my fiance from my mobile phone to her's 24/7/365 at no additional charge), no long distance charges between states, and unlimitted "2 way radio", but we pay per text message. In Europe (so I hear), it's the other way around. The only thing my phone can't do at this point that I hear is rolling out there is full streaming video, though with XSVoice, I do get streaming audio (music, news, etc) at no extra charge.
There are differences in the systems, and monopolies exist even here. I don't know how BT or others work, but I got digital cable and broadband here with nothing more than my credit card, address and cellphone. The cellphone didn't require anything but my credit card. No bills, ID, password, or blood sample. Honest!;)
In all seriousness though, someone from Europe might be just as lost in the midwest US (try finding public transportation here... and it's called a used car lot, hehe). This isn't noise about nothing. If he were where I live, he'd have broadband with same day istallation with any or all of 3 different providers, 2 without a landline phone, 1 without any wires coming in the house at all (assuming it ran on a generator). Or, he could have USB'd his cellphone to his computer for 3x dial-up speeds. Don't even get me started on Satellite broadband with a dial-up uplink.:)
It's not really a cultural difference, but with telecommunications, this highlights a major difference. British readers are saying "That's not that bad, and the US isn't all that much better" US readers are going, "Dang, is it really that hard there?"
I think the point is obvious in those reactions as to what the difference really is. For the record, I don't have a land line at all. Phone calls distract me from Slashdotting.
Bill Gates is pushing for more H1-B's, even with the US computer engineer unemployment rate higher than the national average (which is the real reason colleges are seeing fewer apply for CS degrees). Beware Bill and every other software company out there, if the US ever followed suit. They might just get paid by the state to code your competition.
I wish I could fill out an application to be an (oxymoron) paid/unemployed OSS worker.:D
Of course they would, because they "have" to. Let's not get in the mindset that this makes Google evil, just the FBI.;)
But, let's not forget that they can tap your ISP directly if they want to. Use Google or not, if you live in the US, the FBI owns you... unless you use tools like Tor (http://tor.eff.org/ or Freenet (http://freenet.sourceforge.net/). In as far as unencrypted information, Google really gives the FBI no more advantage than if you used nothing.
What does have to be watched is how Google uses that information, and that is where the difference lies. But, just use https or turn if off if you both a) want to use it and b) don't want it to see "everything".
Google Desktop already reads your browser cache anyways... what, like you thought they couldn't already know what you were looking at if they really wanted to.;)
If AOL can have 100's of CD's in every computer store, why can't Microsoft have their free service patch CD's in stores??
Why can't linux put CD's in stores? There are plenty of masses out there who haven't even heard of linux. It could sit next to that "1000 Hours Free!" sign... "Gentoo Gentlemen?"
Thinking from a business perspective, it is things like this that are a goldmine. They are the solutions to problems freshly created. More hubs/switches/routers with PoE at a time when Wifi is getting all the news. Just think of the market for ethernet surge protectors!/me runs off to purchase 100 shares of every company that makes ethernet surge protectors.
Wait, did someone here just say USB for power?/me sells all shares back, and goes to buy USB power protection companies.
People are wanting to deliver data over electric lines, and power over data lines? This is why I don't eat out anymore... white or wheat, my god waitress, can't you let me relax for one second!
Well, considering Tiger sells computers and Apple is a (not only) computer seller, and that using a competitors image in their product so that there is not just confusion but potential loss of profit (the whole idea of market specific trademarks), I will only agree on one aspect. I don't think they'll likely get an injunction, though if they can show that even the press coverage has hurt Tiger sales, this is more likely.
But, I do believe a court could easily find in favor. In the end though, Apple will settle. Didn't Jobs + lawyers go through several issues of people taking info (blogs), taking ideas (microsoft), and generally, just flat out taking (apparently subway muggings are up because of iPods, go figure, they're the new Nike's to get mugged over).
Apple is starting to take a lot more bad press recently than I've noticed above the background noise lately. Actually being dragged into court by someone else would be bad PR if nothing else. But, in most cases, if the offender changes before any damages are done, no harm, no foul. Apple could easily be the "bigger" company here and say, "Ok, we'll just call it [insert non-computer industry animal name or name of yet another type of apple]." But, not doing that, every day it's out just builds up the potential $$$ stakes of a future lawsuit. All Apple will get is lawyer bills, bad PR, and the possibilities of making a payout to Tiger.
That's my prediction.
BTW, what if Apple puts stickers (like the Intel Inside(tm) ones) saying "Tiger Inside"? Where is that line drawn that you put extremely close to very very defined markets? I'm just curious, because if I'm reading you correct, if even the software is for different tasks, two software packages with the same name wouldn't be trademark infringment?
I'll go right out and create my new "Windowed 2005 E-mail Client"... it'll be supported by my other company, "Apple Technical Support for Windowed 2005". Our motto: If you think we make it, we don't.
However, we're talking specific market here. There are websites named after Apple software. Websites are not software. Again, my best example:
TigerSoftware could make a software program called Apple then?
If you think that is ok, then we just have different views on the scope of trademark. If you think that would be bad, they why would they be different differently?
Pre-empting one line of thinking, let's assume their software is not an OS... let's say it's a music player. This is a far cry from Apple's own software, iTunes. This is a fair comparison, I believe.
They own something as generic as "Apple" and they sue plenty over that name. Gimme a break. Better yet, mod me down again for trolling cause I descent from popular thought.:/
On the contrary, I learned in school long about about trademark. I can no more create a computer company named AppleSoftware, which infringes on the trademark of Apple any more than Apple can create an OS named Tiger than infringes on the TigerSoftware name. They are in the same market. Now, if they were making something called the Tiger Lawn Mower (if something like that didn't already exist), that's a completely different story.
If there is a Texas software company named Longhorn Software, they might not file suit until they were sure Microsoft was no just using an internal code name, but really naming their product. Maybe Tiger Direct isn't that naive, but is Apple really that naive as well to just go take names?
Slashdot is bound and determined to kiss up to Apple's position here. Don't forget that Apple is pulling books off shelves *cough*nazis*cough*, sueing websites in the name of "intellectual property" and fighting to reveal journalistic sources.
It is certainly fair play that Apple has to play by the rules. All that imagination for computer design, but they couldn't come up with a more original, and unused, name? Please, they were dumb enough to assume everything they do springs from the well of stuff-nobody-but-them-has-thought-of. Guess what, Apple... somebody already thought of it, so how about playing by the same rules as everyone else?
First the "IE-only" page problems, is a problem for website operators, not Mozilla (get a UserAgent editor plugin, and fake IE if you wish, or better yet, send them an e-mail every day that you visit and can't access something).
However, the article does make good arguements... that is, if the article was written 5 years from now. Firefox is not a mature browser. 4 years after release, IE 6 still has bugs, no new verson yet. Firefox has only been 1.0 for less than a year. There is certainly a break in period after software of this type reaches critical mass before every bug is vetted.
What the author fails to understand is that by it being open source, more bugs can be found, faster, and fixed, faster. I would certainly HOPE that there are more bugs in Firefox found on a month to month basis. Internet Explorer keeps chugging alone, spitting out new vulnerabilities like breadcrumbs. Firefox on the other hand is now very public, and getting a large influx of bug reports and fixes. However, after Firefox has killed 99.9% of its bugs, Internet Explorer will keep popping out exploits like an assymbly line because limitting the source code means that:
A) A small number of coders can actually look for exploits. Everyone else is basically left to hope that the next IE hacker publishes their exploit. And, once found, you sit back and wait for MS to fix it, instead of coding the fix yourself, or at least submitting fix code, or just even pointing out the area of code that is the problem. With IE, it's not as though you can e-mail them and say, "I found exploit X... It's occurring around line 7934 of file Y."
B) Firefox can truly change focus on a dime, just like with the IDN issue a few months ago. It doesn't take a manager of a manager of a manager to hold 50 meetings, talk with investors, talk with worldwide vendors, talk with politicians, and then make a decision at Mozilla. And, if you don't like Mozilla's decisions, it's open source, and you can always go "fork" yourself.:)
Is Firefox more secure? No. It's not supposed to be right now. Does it have more features? Yes. Is it easier to use? For me, yes. WILL it be more secure than IE once the initial round of exploits have been found? Damn skippy! And THAT is why Firefox is more secure, and why Lynx is still used today. Open Source projects, especially ones that have a great single goal in mind, like just browsing (leaving all the fluff to 3rd parties) eventually turns out something rock hard solid and stable.
It's just the "new" or "continually growing" ones that will have many of the same pitfalls of closed source. The only difference, is that even with those pitfalls, open source still has all of its other benefits.
Good article on statistics. Wrong conclusion and timing. Just another example of some writer trying to make themselves heard over the masses by trying to sail against the current. Unfortunately, his dingy is too small for this trip.
About the use of fuel, from http://www.moller.com/skycar/
The Rotapower engine produces little NOx, the most difficult pollutant to eliminate. In addition, using a stratified charge combustion process greatly reduces the unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emitted....The Skycar's fuel-efficient engines and ability to run on regular automotive gasoline result in low fuel costs. The Skycar is significantly more fuel efficient in passenger miles per gallon than the tilt-rotor V22 Osprey, helicopters or many commercial jet airplanes.
I remember when this first came out, and the inventor claimed on a TV program also that these engines (unmanned versions already in use by municipalities working on bridges and such) can also run on extremely alternative fuels. I remember he specifically said that it could even run on "used McDonald's fry vat grease". In my opinion, this kind of rubust and effecient engine (in terms of flying engine effeciency) is exactly what the world needs. If someone can link to the alternative fuel use information from long ago, I would enjoy reading it again.
Replying to myself, but to simplify the discussion entirely.
Let's say you have X number of Boxes, and Y number of widgets. You need to store all the widgets in the boxes (because your boss has nothing better to do than have you store widgets in boxes). The boxes are all the same size (capable of holding so many widgets eacy), and the widgets are all the same.
What do you do?
You can either put the widgets in the boxes haphazardly, using too many boxes (costing your boss money), or you can put the same number of widgets in each box, and any remainder in the final box. If your boss knows you used method 1, he will have to count the totals of each and every box up to get his inventory. If your boss knows you used method 2, he simply needs to know how many you used in a full box, how many boxes there are, and how many are in the remainder box.
If you realize that method 2 is the better method (which you can check by simply asking anyone in a shipping/invetory department), the question then is simply a matter of A) using the fewest boxes and B) minimizing your remainder. With 365/6 widgets and 1-366 boxes (either all in 1 box, or a box for eacy), you have to look for a good ratio. In my ratio, you have 10 boxes. Each box has six layers, and 6 widgets on a layer. The last box has 1 layer of either 5 or 6.
I think this most easily explains the main benefits of the TEC over Gregorian (or any other system).
Please explain how a 7 day week is fundamental (without getting into a biblical discussion about how God somehow created the first week).
Division by season makes no sense unless it is dependant upon the local culture, such as farming. And, what of the southern hemisphere? If the calendar is dependant on seasons, then they are either 6 months ahead, or 6 months behind the northern hemisphere.
If you read about the history of the current calendar, the months as they were last modified, was out of the ego of a long dead emperor. The calendar has been modified many times, but usually to keep with the year as a unit. Solar means that the calendar is based on revolutions of the earth around the sun, not the crossing of day to night, and it has been modified to make the start of a new year occur at the same time, which under farming cultures, the previous calendars caused horrible seasonal shift. Today, seasons can remain as they are. They aren't symetrical to the calendar at all. They occur at odd times in the months.
The current calendar is more than ugly, it is of no use to a factory/office working population on a 24 hour schedule. As for simplicity, how many days or weeks are in a month? There is no single, simple answer. This affects world markets with adaptive accounting practices, and it affects workers as well. When your rent is due on the first of every month, and you use a monthly budget, you will find that budget most strained on March 1 (not counting holiday spending), because February can only have 4 pay periods, whereas other months may have 5.
And, if a religious discussion were to take place (which I really don't think is a good idea here), I would agree with the proposal of this article that having common dates not move every year would be most preferrential.
A sensible solar calendar, imho, doesn't divide the year at all. Seasons mean different things to different locations, and are polar opposites between hemispheres. A calendar year is simply the ratio of times the earth revolves on its axis to the time it takes to traverse its eliptical orbit of the sun.
My 6x6x10 approach simply divides the 365+ days into a familiar format, but with the easiest possible learning curve, and the most symetric mathematical operations. I'm sure we could sit and debate over Metric vs. US systems as well, and the fact that cooks still enjoy using tablespoons over mL. But, the fact that the metric system is inherently better is an arguement of logic, as is my arguement for the TEC.
Yes, the 5/6 day week was something that was long the bain of my existance, when I spent a lot of time writing on this topic. However, short of following one good fellow's suggestion of rocketting the moon further away from earth, we can never have a perfect calendar. Aside from my other idea of expressing universal decimal date/time by using the most future time at the international date line, there are 2 things we have no option to change: the length of a year, and the non-symetry of the number 365. At least the days of each 'month' (to still use that word) remain constant, and the leap years are semetrically placed (for the most part, and definately compared to Newton weeks, bleh!).
However, let me stress one final idea. The TEC is also a template. What happens when we move off of this planet and onto others? Sure, we will mostly use whatever Earth uses... for a while. But when people are born and live their entire lives on a planet, or in space, a calendar will be needed not just for Earth, but for planets, and something like a ZULU time for the entire local solar system. In those cases, our moons motion, nor seasons, mean anything at all. But then, so will the length of days or of an Earth orbit mean anything either.
However, a TEC approach to Mars is also underway when I find the time, and then maybe one for the local solar system. ATM, I find that the symetry of a 2x3(x5 if necessary) numbering system makes for a much easier translation. Imagine the jet lag when you move between, not time zones, but calendar zones. I'll let Einstein work out how to synchronize it all.:)
It fixes many exploit paths, and fixes handling of the $PHP_SELF variable. $PHP_SELF is potentially vulnerable to cross site scripting on versions 4.3.9 and earlier. This is part of the problem, as I understand it, with some phpBB exploits.
You are also good to go if you get 5.0.3, or so I have heard.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I'm going to try to reply without getting flamed, but here's my take on this.
I RTFA, but I don't know if this is the same copying protection scheme where a person would be limitted to burning all of the CDs they want from the original, but would prevent the copies from themselves being copied. It's probably not, but stick with me a moment.
While one can argue against copyright as it is now, and information wanting to be free, but considering Fair Use as it is now, such a scheme like that makes sense. The big problem with previous schemes is that it locks out Fair Use.
I purchased NIN - With Teeth. I'm an honest consumer, and I pay for products I find of a good enough quality to deserve my consumer dollars. (I actually own pay for a RHEL license, for instance, even though I can legally get linux for free.)
Now, I immediately made 3 copies of this CD. I ripped the highest quality MP3s to my harddrive (I hate when CD's get scratched, and songs are destroyed), and I burned 2 CD-R copies of the CD, one in MP3 format for my DVD/MP3 entertainment system, and 1 for my car in CDA format.
My copying isn't to give the CD to my friends, but to store my nice new CD away, and use "disposable copies" in the 3 places where I often listen to music: my computer, my entertainment system, and my car. I've only made copies that extend my fair use.
Now, if there were a DRM out there that let me make all these copies, as many times as I want, but just prevented me from 'schoolyard piracy', that's perfectly acceptable for me. Of course, that's considering that I'm free to use the content on any OS I want (linux), in any format I want (my brand of CD-R's, not some locked up high price brand), and that none of my listening preferences or other personal information is sent over the Internet to unlock the files on every play. My privacy is absolutely paramount.
If there is a DRM out there that can accomplish this, I would welcome it with open arms. Of course, I do agree with opening up those copyrights, making them opt-in, and for much shorter tersm. But, if NIN wants to not give their songs away, and use a charge only system, at least for a short term like 20 years, that's ok with me because I'm willing to pay for such excellent music. AFAIK, I can own this CD and listen to it for the rest of my life. I think my $10 (marked down at an independant retailer, not some mega-chain) was a fair trade for this content.
As always, I'm on the lookout for good Creative Commons licensed music as well. Sensable copyright and digital rights management doesn't necessarily mean that you are in league with the RIAA/MPAA, nor does it mean you can't support both it and copyleft. The **AA sense of Fair Use is warped, and they're just wanting the equivilant of a nuclear warhead for DRM.
Forbes: How are you gentlemen. All your linux is for Losers.
/ /www.forbes.com
Slashdot: Main screen turn on -
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http:
Linux: You have no chance to survive, make you time. HA HA HA!
I feel like SNL's impression of Alex Trebek here durring a session of Celebrity Jeapardy.
Sean Connery: Preserving your Privacy for $1000
Alex: "Distributed Anonymizing Proxy network of Onion Routers"
Sean Connery: What is your mother's onion sized breasts! I hear she distributes them pretty well, pansy boy!
Alex: I'm sorry, the answer is 'What is Tor?', found at http://tor.eff.org./ And if you talk about my mother again... I will be forced to thrash you.
Didn't RTFA, but I don't support any form of vigilante justice. The simple reason? They're wasting valuable time. While they're playing games hacking into a sever to post "Haha, I rooted a scam site," they could have just coded some simple firewall rules that anybody could use, and simply publish a list of scam ips and domains on a daily/hourly basis. If they want to help, code something to prevent such sites from showing up at all, like introducing software to recognize pages that are asking for personal information, and rejecting their loading if they aren't already in the user's pre-approved list of legit sites.
Problem solved... legally. It's already done for spam blocking, though noticibly slower. Spyware tools already have the simple functionality to use modified Windows host files.
Fact is, whoever is doing this, they just wanted press, and to be "l33t", and get some type of hero status, which Slashdot happily gave them. What they aren't doing is making any difference. Those scam sites were most likely already hacked to begin with, and the perp is just moving from one to another daily.
Self regulation isn't about playing cowboys and indians on the net. It's about empowering other individuals with tools so they can regulate their own experience, not so you can regulate it indiscriminantly for them by attacking others.
Vigilantes are not solutions. Not only do they answer to no one, but if they are the solution, what happens when they get bored hacking scam sites? Obviously those making money will have far more patiences than them. It's just a matter of time, unless an effort and solution is really organized legitimately, so that it becomes perpetual.
This isn't too bad. But, I'll be more impressed when I see Gates caught with an iMac while on vacation to edit his home movies with. Or, someone spying Steve Balmer working out listening to an iPod. Forget necessity, that's explainable, like why Hotmail ran linux servers. Show me an example of clear preference, and you've got an MS film clip that'll make CNN for about a week.
In a letter scheduled to be delivered to Google Monday...
Did anyone else do a double take on this? I almost crapped myself (Google fanboy)... "OMG, Google is going to customize my weekdays!"
Saturday will be in Beta 18 months.
The question should start becoming at this point whether or not e-mail is long past its due? Spam, virii, and scams are the super-majority of inboxes now. We keep fighting the problem, but for what? I don't know about many of you, but 99% of the e-mail I do want to read is from an automated sender telling me my finances or system status or such.
These could easily be handled more securely by SSL encrypted RSS feeds. The other 1% are people who I already know how to contact outside of e-mail.
I think most (probably not all, you always find some) realize that gopher has long since retired. Maybe it's e-mail's time to retire and move from the old dot-com "push content" pipe dream that was only realized as a reality for e-mail, and move to a pull content method (read: unspammable without consent) like personal RSS feeds and GPG/PGP encrypted messages. In that model, you would simply subscribe to all your friend's feeds, and when your system detected a message encrypted to you, it would display it. Or, for automated services, a bank could use SSL RSS feeds to notify customers of immediate issues with their accounts. Certainly this is infinitely more secure than plaintext e-mail that could be a phisher or read by anyone along the line.
Dim the magic? What's this Harry Potter crap? They could have at least said that Bittorrent was dimming the FORCE! Star Wars fans might have at least paid attention to this news then. "My God, Bittorrent can dim THE FORCE!"
Hmmm, I think I just stumbled across the plot of Star Wars VII: Attack of the Force Dimming Sithtorrents!
Hey, can you modify your CSS to double space all your content? I'm sensative and can only use 2-ply TP.
Being American (me ducks the flames), I honestly don't know what a fault is. I've never heard of it. I'm not saying we don't get them, but you all seem to know about them or have at least heard of them. It's just not that way here, or at least locally here.
;)
:)
As for broadband, I have even more options. I can go dial-up, cable (what I have), DSL, or (what few others seem to have) Wireless Tower (1Mbps wireless broadcast from center of small town).
I do hear that Europe has SMS. Well, we've had text messaging for a long time, though not SMS. But, the US isn't a big text messager. The difference between the US and Europe is that we get unlimitted minutes (yes, I can talk to my fiance from my mobile phone to her's 24/7/365 at no additional charge), no long distance charges between states, and unlimitted "2 way radio", but we pay per text message. In Europe (so I hear), it's the other way around. The only thing my phone can't do at this point that I hear is rolling out there is full streaming video, though with XSVoice, I do get streaming audio (music, news, etc) at no extra charge.
There are differences in the systems, and monopolies exist even here. I don't know how BT or others work, but I got digital cable and broadband here with nothing more than my credit card, address and cellphone. The cellphone didn't require anything but my credit card. No bills, ID, password, or blood sample. Honest!
In all seriousness though, someone from Europe might be just as lost in the midwest US (try finding public transportation here... and it's called a used car lot, hehe). This isn't noise about nothing. If he were where I live, he'd have broadband with same day istallation with any or all of 3 different providers, 2 without a landline phone, 1 without any wires coming in the house at all (assuming it ran on a generator). Or, he could have USB'd his cellphone to his computer for 3x dial-up speeds. Don't even get me started on Satellite broadband with a dial-up uplink.
It's not really a cultural difference, but with telecommunications, this highlights a major difference. British readers are saying "That's not that bad, and the US isn't all that much better" US readers are going, "Dang, is it really that hard there?"
I think the point is obvious in those reactions as to what the difference really is. For the record, I don't have a land line at all. Phone calls distract me from Slashdotting.
Bill Gates is pushing for more H1-B's, even with the US computer engineer unemployment rate higher than the national average (which is the real reason colleges are seeing fewer apply for CS degrees). Beware Bill and every other software company out there, if the US ever followed suit. They might just get paid by the state to code your competition.
:D
I wish I could fill out an application to be an (oxymoron) paid/unemployed OSS worker.
The title of that post was supposed to be FBI > Google > nub... but /. editted it to make it look like I was calling you names. Sorry 'bout that. :(
Of course they would, because they "have" to. Let's not get in the mindset that this makes Google evil, just the FBI. ;)
;)
But, let's not forget that they can tap your ISP directly if they want to. Use Google or not, if you live in the US, the FBI owns you... unless you use tools like Tor (http://tor.eff.org/ or Freenet (http://freenet.sourceforge.net/). In as far as unencrypted information, Google really gives the FBI no more advantage than if you used nothing.
What does have to be watched is how Google uses that information, and that is where the difference lies. But, just use https or turn if off if you both a) want to use it and b) don't want it to see "everything".
Google Desktop already reads your browser cache anyways... what, like you thought they couldn't already know what you were looking at if they really wanted to.
If AOL can have 100's of CD's in every computer store, why can't Microsoft have their free service patch CD's in stores??
;)
Why can't linux put CD's in stores? There are plenty of masses out there who haven't even heard of linux. It could sit next to that "1000 Hours Free!" sign... "Gentoo Gentlemen?"
Sorry, were we talking about M$?
Thinking from a business perspective, it is things like this that are a goldmine. They are the solutions to problems freshly created. More hubs/switches/routers with PoE at a time when Wifi is getting all the news. Just think of the market for ethernet surge protectors! /me runs off to purchase 100 shares of every company that makes ethernet surge protectors.
/me sells all shares back, and goes to buy USB power protection companies.
Wait, did someone here just say USB for power?
People are wanting to deliver data over electric lines, and power over data lines? This is why I don't eat out anymore... white or wheat, my god waitress, can't you let me relax for one second!
Well, considering Tiger sells computers and Apple is a (not only) computer seller, and that using a competitors image in their product so that there is not just confusion but potential loss of profit (the whole idea of market specific trademarks), I will only agree on one aspect. I don't think they'll likely get an injunction, though if they can show that even the press coverage has hurt Tiger sales, this is more likely.
But, I do believe a court could easily find in favor. In the end though, Apple will settle. Didn't Jobs + lawyers go through several issues of people taking info (blogs), taking ideas (microsoft), and generally, just flat out taking (apparently subway muggings are up because of iPods, go figure, they're the new Nike's to get mugged over).
Apple is starting to take a lot more bad press recently than I've noticed above the background noise lately. Actually being dragged into court by someone else would be bad PR if nothing else. But, in most cases, if the offender changes before any damages are done, no harm, no foul. Apple could easily be the "bigger" company here and say, "Ok, we'll just call it [insert non-computer industry animal name or name of yet another type of apple]." But, not doing that, every day it's out just builds up the potential $$$ stakes of a future lawsuit. All Apple will get is lawyer bills, bad PR, and the possibilities of making a payout to Tiger.
That's my prediction.
BTW, what if Apple puts stickers (like the Intel Inside(tm) ones) saying "Tiger Inside"? Where is that line drawn that you put extremely close to very very defined markets? I'm just curious, because if I'm reading you correct, if even the software is for different tasks, two software packages with the same name wouldn't be trademark infringment?
I'll go right out and create my new "Windowed 2005 E-mail Client"... it'll be supported by my other company, "Apple Technical Support for Windowed 2005". Our motto: If you think we make it, we don't.
That's why I play the Sims, for the photorealism.
However, we're talking specific market here. There are websites named after Apple software. Websites are not software. Again, my best example:
TigerSoftware could make a software program called Apple then?
If you think that is ok, then we just have different views on the scope of trademark. If you think that would be bad, they why would they be different differently?
Pre-empting one line of thinking, let's assume their software is not an OS... let's say it's a music player. This is a far cry from Apple's own software, iTunes. This is a fair comparison, I believe.
You can't own something as generic as "Tiger"?
:/
They own something as generic as "Apple" and they sue plenty over that name. Gimme a break. Better yet, mod me down again for trolling cause I descent from popular thought.
On the contrary, I learned in school long about about trademark. I can no more create a computer company named AppleSoftware, which infringes on the trademark of Apple any more than Apple can create an OS named Tiger than infringes on the TigerSoftware name. They are in the same market. Now, if they were making something called the Tiger Lawn Mower (if something like that didn't already exist), that's a completely different story. If there is a Texas software company named Longhorn Software, they might not file suit until they were sure Microsoft was no just using an internal code name, but really naming their product. Maybe Tiger Direct isn't that naive, but is Apple really that naive as well to just go take names? Slashdot is bound and determined to kiss up to Apple's position here. Don't forget that Apple is pulling books off shelves *cough*nazis*cough*, sueing websites in the name of "intellectual property" and fighting to reveal journalistic sources. It is certainly fair play that Apple has to play by the rules. All that imagination for computer design, but they couldn't come up with a more original, and unused, name? Please, they were dumb enough to assume everything they do springs from the well of stuff-nobody-but-them-has-thought-of. Guess what, Apple... somebody already thought of it, so how about playing by the same rules as everyone else?
First the "IE-only" page problems, is a problem for website operators, not Mozilla (get a UserAgent editor plugin, and fake IE if you wish, or better yet, send them an e-mail every day that you visit and can't access something).
:)
However, the article does make good arguements... that is, if the article was written 5 years from now. Firefox is not a mature browser. 4 years after release, IE 6 still has bugs, no new verson yet. Firefox has only been 1.0 for less than a year. There is certainly a break in period after software of this type reaches critical mass before every bug is vetted.
What the author fails to understand is that by it being open source, more bugs can be found, faster, and fixed, faster. I would certainly HOPE that there are more bugs in Firefox found on a month to month basis. Internet Explorer keeps chugging alone, spitting out new vulnerabilities like breadcrumbs. Firefox on the other hand is now very public, and getting a large influx of bug reports and fixes. However, after Firefox has killed 99.9% of its bugs, Internet Explorer will keep popping out exploits like an assymbly line because limitting the source code means that:
A) A small number of coders can actually look for exploits. Everyone else is basically left to hope that the next IE hacker publishes their exploit. And, once found, you sit back and wait for MS to fix it, instead of coding the fix yourself, or at least submitting fix code, or just even pointing out the area of code that is the problem. With IE, it's not as though you can e-mail them and say, "I found exploit X... It's occurring around line 7934 of file Y."
B) Firefox can truly change focus on a dime, just like with the IDN issue a few months ago. It doesn't take a manager of a manager of a manager to hold 50 meetings, talk with investors, talk with worldwide vendors, talk with politicians, and then make a decision at Mozilla. And, if you don't like Mozilla's decisions, it's open source, and you can always go "fork" yourself.
Is Firefox more secure? No. It's not supposed to be right now. Does it have more features? Yes. Is it easier to use? For me, yes. WILL it be more secure than IE once the initial round of exploits have been found? Damn skippy! And THAT is why Firefox is more secure, and why Lynx is still used today. Open Source projects, especially ones that have a great single goal in mind, like just browsing (leaving all the fluff to 3rd parties) eventually turns out something rock hard solid and stable.
It's just the "new" or "continually growing" ones that will have many of the same pitfalls of closed source. The only difference, is that even with those pitfalls, open source still has all of its other benefits.
Good article on statistics. Wrong conclusion and timing. Just another example of some writer trying to make themselves heard over the masses by trying to sail against the current. Unfortunately, his dingy is too small for this trip.
About the use of fuel, from http://www.moller.com/skycar/
The Rotapower engine produces little NOx, the most difficult pollutant to eliminate. In addition, using a stratified charge combustion process greatly reduces the unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emitted....The Skycar's fuel-efficient engines and ability to run on regular automotive gasoline result in low fuel costs. The Skycar is significantly more fuel efficient in passenger miles per gallon than the tilt-rotor V22 Osprey, helicopters or many commercial jet airplanes.
I remember when this first came out, and the inventor claimed on a TV program also that these engines (unmanned versions already in use by municipalities working on bridges and such) can also run on extremely alternative fuels. I remember he specifically said that it could even run on "used McDonald's fry vat grease". In my opinion, this kind of rubust and effecient engine (in terms of flying engine effeciency) is exactly what the world needs. If someone can link to the alternative fuel use information from long ago, I would enjoy reading it again.
Replying to myself, but to simplify the discussion entirely.
Let's say you have X number of Boxes, and Y number of widgets. You need to store all the widgets in the boxes (because your boss has nothing better to do than have you store widgets in boxes). The boxes are all the same size (capable of holding so many widgets eacy), and the widgets are all the same.
What do you do?
You can either put the widgets in the boxes haphazardly, using too many boxes (costing your boss money), or you can put the same number of widgets in each box, and any remainder in the final box. If your boss knows you used method 1, he will have to count the totals of each and every box up to get his inventory. If your boss knows you used method 2, he simply needs to know how many you used in a full box, how many boxes there are, and how many are in the remainder box.
If you realize that method 2 is the better method (which you can check by simply asking anyone in a shipping/invetory department), the question then is simply a matter of A) using the fewest boxes and B) minimizing your remainder. With 365/6 widgets and 1-366 boxes (either all in 1 box, or a box for eacy), you have to look for a good ratio. In my ratio, you have 10 boxes. Each box has six layers, and 6 widgets on a layer. The last box has 1 layer of either 5 or 6.
I think this most easily explains the main benefits of the TEC over Gregorian (or any other system).
Please explain how a 7 day week is fundamental (without getting into a biblical discussion about how God somehow created the first week).
:)
Division by season makes no sense unless it is dependant upon the local culture, such as farming. And, what of the southern hemisphere? If the calendar is dependant on seasons, then they are either 6 months ahead, or 6 months behind the northern hemisphere.
If you read about the history of the current calendar, the months as they were last modified, was out of the ego of a long dead emperor. The calendar has been modified many times, but usually to keep with the year as a unit. Solar means that the calendar is based on revolutions of the earth around the sun, not the crossing of day to night, and it has been modified to make the start of a new year occur at the same time, which under farming cultures, the previous calendars caused horrible seasonal shift. Today, seasons can remain as they are. They aren't symetrical to the calendar at all. They occur at odd times in the months.
The current calendar is more than ugly, it is of no use to a factory/office working population on a 24 hour schedule. As for simplicity, how many days or weeks are in a month? There is no single, simple answer. This affects world markets with adaptive accounting practices, and it affects workers as well. When your rent is due on the first of every month, and you use a monthly budget, you will find that budget most strained on March 1 (not counting holiday spending), because February can only have 4 pay periods, whereas other months may have 5.
And, if a religious discussion were to take place (which I really don't think is a good idea here), I would agree with the proposal of this article that having common dates not move every year would be most preferrential.
A sensible solar calendar, imho, doesn't divide the year at all. Seasons mean different things to different locations, and are polar opposites between hemispheres. A calendar year is simply the ratio of times the earth revolves on its axis to the time it takes to traverse its eliptical orbit of the sun.
My 6x6x10 approach simply divides the 365+ days into a familiar format, but with the easiest possible learning curve, and the most symetric mathematical operations. I'm sure we could sit and debate over Metric vs. US systems as well, and the fact that cooks still enjoy using tablespoons over mL. But, the fact that the metric system is inherently better is an arguement of logic, as is my arguement for the TEC.
Yes, the 5/6 day week was something that was long the bain of my existance, when I spent a lot of time writing on this topic. However, short of following one good fellow's suggestion of rocketting the moon further away from earth, we can never have a perfect calendar. Aside from my other idea of expressing universal decimal date/time by using the most future time at the international date line, there are 2 things we have no option to change: the length of a year, and the non-symetry of the number 365. At least the days of each 'month' (to still use that word) remain constant, and the leap years are semetrically placed (for the most part, and definately compared to Newton weeks, bleh!).
However, let me stress one final idea. The TEC is also a template. What happens when we move off of this planet and onto others? Sure, we will mostly use whatever Earth uses... for a while. But when people are born and live their entire lives on a planet, or in space, a calendar will be needed not just for Earth, but for planets, and something like a ZULU time for the entire local solar system. In those cases, our moons motion, nor seasons, mean anything at all. But then, so will the length of days or of an Earth orbit mean anything either.
However, a TEC approach to Mars is also underway when I find the time, and then maybe one for the local solar system. ATM, I find that the symetry of a 2x3(x5 if necessary) numbering system makes for a much easier translation. Imagine the jet lag when you move between, not time zones, but calendar zones. I'll let Einstein work out how to synchronize it all.
It fixes many exploit paths, and fixes handling of the $PHP_SELF variable. $PHP_SELF is potentially vulnerable to cross site scripting on versions 4.3.9 and earlier. This is part of the problem, as I understand it, with some phpBB exploits.
You are also good to go if you get 5.0.3, or so I have heard.