When I read the likes of what was just written, I think of all the selfishness in the world and how the masses drift into slavery by convenience. After all, it is easier to get swept up into the wind than to stand strong against the storm.
Any practical definition of freedom encompasses an amount of self determination. When you have no self determination, you have no freedom. It really is that simple.
The only reason you have Linux at all is a desire for freedom. RMS is typically 100% right and accurate. He is a *VERY* practical person with very practical ideals. He only seems radical because people are so lazy and selfish. Too enamored with "Donald Trump" or "Bill Gates" than "Benjamin Franklin."
I submit that it is YOU who is being impractical. You are paying money to billion dollar corporations that have been proved time and again to be working against you. If 1/10th the amount of money paid to M$ for their crap were funneled into Linux and free software, we would not have a Microsoft Monopoly.
You go on how you want to do what you want to do *now*, OK, have a lollipop little boy. Just remember, in a jail cell, you don't have to work and the food doesn't cost money.
What a nice way to illustrate how the GPL enslaves developers to a particular mindset. Only the BSD license grants real freedom, since it doesn't limit anyone's rights. It's not hard to understand, but some people are just such fanatics.
So you think that you have the right to take someone's code, change it, and keep it for yourself?
I *am* a GPL author and I make my code available to anyone under the condition that if they use it, anything based on it is also free.
If that is an odd concept, then you must have failed kindergarten when you should have learned "share and share alike!"
Freedom is not free. There are always limits, one should not have the freedom to steal. The freedom to harm. The freedom to enslave.
The GPL is used to ensure that the code the original authors make available to users REMAINS available to users.
If you are a software developer that doesn't like the GPL because it forces you to make your additions public, then, sorry, screw you, write your own software from scratch. You have no right to benefit on an altered social contract of those who made their work available.
GPL3 is an *improvement* of this ideal.
So many people are coming into the free software environment and are frustrated that they can't take the intellectual property of others (copyright in this case), to those people I say GOOD! The code ain't yours! Someone else wrote it!!!
OK, personal attacks aside, RMS is absolutely a character. Is he a zealot? Perhaps, but extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Linus is a visionless fool who does not see the danger. RMS is the man saying that there is real danger and trying to wake people to realities that confront us.
The "freedom" the GPL seeks to provide is the protection from people like Microsoft who will take what open source of free software authors write, close it off, change it subtly, force it out in their monopoly platform, and basically deny the original authors the benefit of their work. Or make patent deals that exclude authors and force users, out of FUD, to pay for licenses they shouldn't need. Or take code modify it, sell it as a Tivo, and use a loophole to the original authors original intentions.
RMS sees these as the real threats they are. Linus ignores them.
So, bash RMS if you will, but progress is never made by "reasonable" people, "reasonable" people are the "frogs on a hotplate," they don't see the danger until it is too late.
Installing unlicensed software is a dangerous thing to do, but we all need our job, lets be honest. I would answer the issue by sending an email, something to the effect of: >>>>>>>>>>> to: bos from: me Date: mm/dd/yy
As per our conversation, I strongly recommend against installing unlicensed software on our employees machines. Ernie Ball Music had to settle for $90,000 with the BSA for merely accidental infringement. Please understand, I am not trying to cause any internal issues and believe I am trying to do the right thing for the company and my department by trying to limit it exposure. I fully understand that it is not my call and will defer to your judgment on the matter.
Your name.
You need to keep your job. You need to keep your reputation. Do what your told, but cover your ass. Great operatives are important in the world. An IT guy, like it or not, is an operative of the company. There are policies out of your control. You may disagree with them, but the job requires you do them or quit or be fired.
You will not find an IT (or any really) job that doesn't have moral conflicts, you have to draw a reasonable line you will not cross, and be a stand-up guy and warn the people who are asking you to do something that you feel is unethical, but in the end, let the "gray area" be the decision of your boss.
You may have taken my sentence and changed the meaning by changing one word, but do not assume you "fixed" anything. If scientific methodologies bore you, that's your problem.
The average layman in the USA doesn't understand science or reason very well, and fight tooth and nail against any sort of fancy learning, lest they become "elite" in the eyes of the republicans.
The Myth Busters is, of course, fun. It is fun to see things blow up. It is fun to watch two pseudo-nerds fight.
Here's the thing, not everything they do is crap, sometimes they get it more or less right, or at least right enough that one should pause. Most of they time they do a pretty mediocre job at it.
Don't confuse science with entertainment. It seems that the myth busters work from a layman's perspective and as such, fancy methodologies would confuse the audience.
The first part of the article focused on a court decision that merely said that the vicinity of an IP address of a recorded crime is sufficient to give police probable cause. I reluctantly agree with the reasoning, while slippery slopes are inviting to law enforcement, if there is indeed a provable crime linked to an IP address, it is LIKELY that it happened where the router is. That is, by definition, "probable cause." Probable cause is not a suspicion that "john doe" is committing a crime, it is a legal precedent that allows police to search a premises without a warrant because they have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed.
Personally, I would argue that probable cause does not apply here because there is an understanding that probable cause is an "emergency procedure" that police may use to stop a crime that is in progress. Since they had enough evidence to go after the guy after the fact, they certainly had enough time to get a warrant and there was no emergency condition to violate the rights of the individual.
The Yarro law is nonsense, even if you don't have an "OpenWap" there are so many wap systems out there with known security issues, you could easily make the legal argument that if it is criminal negligence to have an open wap, then wap companies, linksys, dlink, et. al. are criminally negligent for providing waps that are default open *AND* not providing services to maintain the security of the router for a documented period of time.
Once there is precedent that lack of REAL security (i.e. actually preventing unauthorized illegal activity) is "criminal negligence," EVERYONE in the tech industry is in danger, and at the top of that list is Microsoft. And you know there is no way Microsoft will allow a precedent that links failed security and criminal negligence.
If a bug in software allows criminal activity, you should be able to prove that you had no knowledge or control of the software. In fact, most EULAs explicitly state you may not disassemble the software, so you have a provable case that there is no way you could know and that the software provider is actually the one who is criminally negligent.
(1) Own more than one computer (2) Never store anything "contraband" on your "main" computer (3) Setup and hide a server which uses an encrypted volume for file you wish to keep private. (While technically to comply with the law you would have to divulge the existence of said computer if asked, but one need not volunteer anything) (4) The encrypted volume should be an external storage system that has no entry in the log files of disk configuration. (5) Assuming Linux or Mac, create a folder, say Music or Movies, and put home movies and indie music there. (6) Mount the encrypted volumes on Music and/or Movies. (7) Clear the logs every hour. (8) Always backup your data and store it off site where it can not be tracked with billing records. (Small steel box buried in the back yard or something like that.)
The purpose is to eliminate any sort of record or smoking gun. Their first subpoena will be sloppy and something you should be able to comply with easily enough. They won't have any legitimate evidence. They court will eventually tell them to shove off.
Yes, but it is improbable that enough people do it. People don't view themselves as citizens. Laziness is more widespread than greed, and as such capitalism's abilities aren't fully utilized.
Well, tell Imus that threats of boycotts don't work. Tell the writers of "God, the devil, and bob."
They do work, one must be loud enough and constant enough.
This isn't quite the necessity of energy. We are talking about internet flash videos. I think I can honestly say that if people were to watch fewer of them, we would all be better off.
While capitalism is merely an economic system, "captialism" has many parallels to democracy, most importantly freedom and majority consensus.
The idea of people voting is a scary thing. They won't always vote the way YOU want them too. Things that are important to you may not be important than the society at large. Worse yet, people and sheep share a disturbing "herd" tendency.
These are the very real and very scary things that democracy is. That's why the "founding fathers" of the U.S.A. have been quoted in various ways of saying I can think of no worse form of government, but I can think of no better. For democracy and capitalism to work, we all must be citizens.
That's an interesting take, "stake holders," I can understand that position, but let me ask you this:
You write a open source application. You poor a lot of time and effort into it. You do it for what ever reason, on-line resume, share what you have, what ever. People take your work and spin off their own project because they disagree with what you want to do. They may assume they have a "stake," but by introducing something do you give them the rights?
More to the point, I have an open source project that I know for a fact has helped a number of companies run their web clusters. It is small, fast, and stable, and I'm working on a new version. I have received a total of $360 dollars since 1998. I get lots of downloads and plenty of emails saying "Dude! this this is great!" I put it out there because I use it and want to share. I've tried selling it, but I.T. is a difficult sell. Back to the point, given the scenario I just gave you, who, besides the guy who sent me $360 for tech-support, should I consider a "stake holder?" The "dude! this is great" guys?
I think a "stake holder" has to be someone who has materially contributed to a project in either cash or time. Mere users in the GPL "Free Software" world, (I know I will get flamed for this) IMHO, deserve less than users of closed or proprietary software, as at least closed source users buy their software. GPL/Free Software users get the software for free, for them to be "true" stake holders they need to make some sort of "stake" in the project.
The "in the future" issue is not about the GPL, it is an issue with law, i.e. you can't change the rules in the middle of the game. So, yes, you are right, you can use GPL code as long as you want, no matter what the new license is.
If the author is the sole author and/or owns all the copyrights, then they can do what ever they like. If, however, they have accepted third party submitions then they may have a legal obligation to remain GPLv2
I don't mean this as a flame, but I'm sure it will be mod'ed as such, but this needs to be said.
I used to really worry about trusting business, especially MY business, on Linux. "Who" would support me? What about my data? What if it breaks, etc.
After spending more than a decade using Linux as my OS of choice, my worries about Linux are almost gone, but I have realized that there are bigger worries that people don't even realize they have to deal with with Windows.
Microsoft is a single company, and if not an out right monopoly, certainly a virtual one. They are in the position to make autocratic decisions regardless of customer demands. DRM? Discontinuing Windows XP? If my company had a product that people wanted, I wouldn't be able to, responsibly, stop shipping it.
The average office is held hostage to Microsoft's whims. Vista is a perfect example. It breaks existing applications, it needs far more resources to run. It has a much more draconian set of licensing restrictions and obligations. Yet, Microsoft can STILL stop Windows XP regardless of the customer need.
Linux is better. If the company you have decides to change and break your applications, you don't have to upgrade. You can, more or less, add the "cool" new features of the new release without breaking your system.
The average home user goes it alone, they either do it themselves, have a nerd-buddy, or use something like geek squad. Medium to large size offices typically have IT management services, and the Linux model is typically better for them, if it were not for vendor.
If ODF takes off enough to the point where "Microsoft Office" is optional, you'll see a lot of companies switching users to Linux just for the TCO. (M$ TCO FUD not withstanding)
Like other posters, I am at a loss at where to start.
(1) If you don't have encryption, GOOD ENCRYPTION, you can't protect squat. (2) "Self Destruct" is interesting, but unless you have a custom micro-controller on the ram stick, AND an independent power supply, AND the device potted in epoxy, it is all just a made for TV gimmick. (3) Password.exe? I didn't see this in the article, but what happens if one plugs it into a Mac, Linux, FreeBSD, etc? Does it just work or does it self destruct? (4) With reference to #2, since the article showed that one could make the device read-only, would self-destruct no longer work? If so, it MUST be potted in epoxy. (5) Does the "self destruct" operate on the PC or th ram stick? We all know if it runs on the PC, it is doomed to fail.
If they want to REALLY do this:
(1) before everything, encrypt the data. This buys the device time to operate and basic security. (2) Install a PIC or something that MUST have an encoded heart beat with some sort of hard to reproduce calculated byte pattern. (3) Without a valid heart beat, the PIC will simply not enable the flash device. (4) With a valid heart beat, the system must pass a valid password hash string within a reasonable amount of time to the PIC, or the data will be destroyed. (5) After a number of failed attempts, the PIC will destroy the data. (6) When the heart beat stops, the PIC disables the flash. (It is presumed that the software clears he file system cache as well.) (7) Pot the damned device in epoxy.
I'm sure this is tongue in cheek, but evolution is far more complex than that. I think it is safe to say that biological based flight has no darwinian basis in current or proposed theory.
So far, I've never seen a cell phone that will let me look at my calendar while I'm talking on the phone. Or enter an item into my to-do list. Or look up some contact information that a friend of mine doesn't have. (*ring* *ring* "Hey, do you have Jeff's phone number?" "Sure, got it right here.")
While you may not have seen it, it is merely a UI problem. Since most CellDrones walk around with hands-free (wire or bluetooth) seemingly talking to themselves, there is no reason why you should be able to do what you want.
There is a definite positive correlation between the time you need your organizational information (calendar, contacts, etc.), and times that you are on the phone. And that's why, to me, in the ideal world, my PDA is separate from my phone.
Again, with "hands-free" a phone is a PDA. There is no reason why a phone (merely a computer) can't multitask.
There can be only one!!!
on
Palm to go Linux
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
OK, lets be honest, we all need our cell phones. Some of us need our blackberries. We all want our music.
Rather than juggle all three, there is no reason why the cell phone can't do everything and more. After all a computer, whether it is in a P.C., Cellphone, or what ever is still a computer.
IMHO, Palm is wrong, they are coming into the system from the wrong direction, they MUST focus on the phone first and most, then blackberry, then MP3 player. Deliver a package to Verizon, Cingular, Orange, etc.
If you don't like their actions, refuse to buy their products, let them know why you won't buy their products. Wake up sheeple, entertainment is not worth the loss of rights. RIAA, MPAA, et. al. would have no money or power were you not to give it to them.
In my office I have two 19" 1280x1024 monitors on an NVidia card. It is just so much easier to work. Seriously.
(1) Since most all documentation is digital and not pressed trees, I don't have the luxury of a book on my desk, but with two monitors I can leave a PDF on one monitor.
(2) Since I have two pretty large monitors, I can look at API docs, technical articles, AND my development environment merely by moving my eyes.
When I have to work on my laptop, I feel so constrained, and it takes so much time to work because I have to constantly switch windows or desktops, its just a pain.
IMHO you need either a large monitor or two monitors because there aren't any books anymore. My brain's memory registers get filled up when I work, I don't have any spares to flash memorize API docs, API examples while I am writing code. It is easier, and quicker, to simply glance right or left.
It is a good thing that the site is under creative commons license. If they do "gag" P.J., then magically, I'm sure, Groklaw2 will pop up and appear hosted by someone, with a different web master while P.J. gets a well deserved rest.
Slashdot Mirror
When I read the likes of what was just written, I think of all the selfishness in the world and how the masses drift into slavery by convenience. After all, it is easier to get swept up into the wind than to stand strong against the storm.
Any practical definition of freedom encompasses an amount of self determination. When you have no self determination, you have no freedom. It really is that simple.
The only reason you have Linux at all is a desire for freedom. RMS is typically 100% right and accurate. He is a *VERY* practical person with very practical ideals. He only seems radical because people are so lazy and selfish. Too enamored with "Donald Trump" or "Bill Gates" than "Benjamin Franklin."
I submit that it is YOU who is being impractical. You are paying money to billion dollar corporations that have been proved time and again to be working against you. If 1/10th the amount of money paid to M$ for their crap were funneled into Linux and free software, we would not have a Microsoft Monopoly.
You go on how you want to do what you want to do *now*, OK, have a lollipop little boy. Just remember, in a jail cell, you don't have to work and the food doesn't cost money.
What a nice way to illustrate how the GPL enslaves developers to a particular mindset. Only the BSD license grants real freedom, since it doesn't limit anyone's rights. It's not hard to understand, but some people are just such fanatics.
So you think that you have the right to take someone's code, change it, and keep it for yourself?
I *am* a GPL author and I make my code available to anyone under the condition that if they use it, anything based on it is also free.
If that is an odd concept, then you must have failed kindergarten when you should have learned "share and share alike!"
Freedom is not free. There are always limits, one should not have the freedom to steal. The freedom to harm. The freedom to enslave.
The GPL is used to ensure that the code the original authors make available to users REMAINS available to users.
If you are a software developer that doesn't like the GPL because it forces you to make your additions public, then, sorry, screw you, write your own software from scratch. You have no right to benefit on an altered social contract of those who made their work available.
GPL3 is an *improvement* of this ideal.
So many people are coming into the free software environment and are frustrated that they can't take the intellectual property of others (copyright in this case), to those people I say GOOD! The code ain't yours! Someone else wrote it!!!
OK, personal attacks aside, RMS is absolutely a character. Is he a zealot? Perhaps, but extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue. Linus is a visionless fool who does not see the danger. RMS is the man saying that there is real danger and trying to wake people to realities that confront us. The "freedom" the GPL seeks to provide is the protection from people like Microsoft who will take what open source of free software authors write, close it off, change it subtly, force it out in their monopoly platform, and basically deny the original authors the benefit of their work. Or make patent deals that exclude authors and force users, out of FUD, to pay for licenses they shouldn't need. Or take code modify it, sell it as a Tivo, and use a loophole to the original authors original intentions. RMS sees these as the real threats they are. Linus ignores them. So, bash RMS if you will, but progress is never made by "reasonable" people, "reasonable" people are the "frogs on a hotplate," they don't see the danger until it is too late.
Installing unlicensed software is a dangerous thing to do, but we all need our job, lets be honest. I would answer the issue by sending an email, something to the effect of:
>>>>>>>>>>>
to: bos
from: me
Date: mm/dd/yy
As per our conversation, I strongly recommend against installing unlicensed software on our employees machines. Ernie Ball Music had to settle for $90,000 with the BSA for merely accidental infringement. Please understand, I am not trying to cause any internal issues and believe I am trying to do the right thing for the company and my department by trying to limit it exposure. I fully understand that it is not my call and will defer to your judgment on the matter.
Your name.
You need to keep your job. You need to keep your reputation. Do what your told, but cover your ass. Great operatives are important in the world. An IT guy, like it or not, is an operative of the company. There are policies out of your control. You may disagree with them, but the job requires you do them or quit or be fired.
You will not find an IT (or any really) job that doesn't have moral conflicts, you have to draw a reasonable line you will not cross, and be a stand-up guy and warn the people who are asking you to do something that you feel is unethical, but in the end, let the "gray area" be the decision of your boss.
You may have taken my sentence and changed the meaning by changing one word, but do not assume you "fixed" anything. If scientific methodologies bore you, that's your problem.
The average layman in the USA doesn't understand science or reason very well, and fight tooth and nail against any sort of fancy learning, lest they become "elite" in the eyes of the republicans.
The Myth Busters is, of course, fun. It is fun to see things blow up. It is fun to watch two pseudo-nerds fight.
Here's the thing, not everything they do is crap, sometimes they get it more or less right, or at least right enough that one should pause. Most of they time they do a pretty mediocre job at it.
Don't confuse science with entertainment. It seems that the myth busters work from a layman's perspective and as such, fancy methodologies would confuse the audience.
The first part of the article focused on a court decision that merely said that the vicinity of an IP address of a recorded crime is sufficient to give police probable cause. I reluctantly agree with the reasoning, while slippery slopes are inviting to law enforcement, if there is indeed a provable crime linked to an IP address, it is LIKELY that it happened where the router is. That is, by definition, "probable cause." Probable cause is not a suspicion that "john doe" is committing a crime, it is a legal precedent that allows police to search a premises without a warrant because they have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed.
Personally, I would argue that probable cause does not apply here because there is an understanding that probable cause is an "emergency procedure" that police may use to stop a crime that is in progress. Since they had enough evidence to go after the guy after the fact, they certainly had enough time to get a warrant and there was no emergency condition to violate the rights of the individual.
The Yarro law is nonsense, even if you don't have an "OpenWap" there are so many wap systems out there with known security issues, you could easily make the legal argument that if it is criminal negligence to have an open wap, then wap companies, linksys, dlink, et. al. are criminally negligent for providing waps that are default open *AND* not providing services to maintain the security of the router for a documented period of time.
Once there is precedent that lack of REAL security (i.e. actually preventing unauthorized illegal activity) is "criminal negligence," EVERYONE in the tech industry is in danger, and at the top of that list is Microsoft. And you know there is no way Microsoft will allow a precedent that links failed security and criminal negligence.
If a bug in software allows criminal activity, you should be able to prove that you had no knowledge or control of the software. In fact, most EULAs explicitly state you may not disassemble the software, so you have a provable case that there is no way you could know and that the software provider is actually the one who is criminally negligent.
(1) Own more than one computer
(2) Never store anything "contraband" on your "main" computer
(3) Setup and hide a server which uses an encrypted volume for file you wish to keep private. (While technically to comply with the law you would have to divulge the existence of said computer if asked, but one need not volunteer anything)
(4) The encrypted volume should be an external storage system that has no entry in the log files of disk configuration.
(5) Assuming Linux or Mac, create a folder, say Music or Movies, and put home movies and indie music there.
(6) Mount the encrypted volumes on Music and/or Movies.
(7) Clear the logs every hour.
(8) Always backup your data and store it off site where it can not be tracked with billing records. (Small steel box buried in the back yard or something like that.)
The purpose is to eliminate any sort of record or smoking gun. Their first subpoena will be sloppy and something you should be able to comply with easily enough. They won't have any legitimate evidence. They court will eventually tell them to shove off.
Yes, but it is improbable that enough people do it. People don't view themselves as citizens. Laziness is more widespread than greed, and as such capitalism's abilities aren't fully utilized.
Well, tell Imus that threats of boycotts don't work. Tell the writers of "God, the devil, and bob."
They do work, one must be loud enough and constant enough.
This isn't quite the necessity of energy. We are talking about internet flash videos. I think I can honestly say that if people were to watch fewer of them, we would all be better off.
While capitalism is merely an economic system, "captialism" has many parallels to democracy, most importantly freedom and majority consensus.
The idea of people voting is a scary thing. They won't always vote the way YOU want them too. Things that are important to you may not be important than the society at large. Worse yet, people and sheep share a disturbing "herd" tendency.
These are the very real and very scary things that democracy is. That's why the "founding fathers" of the U.S.A. have been quoted in various ways of saying I can think of no worse form of government, but I can think of no better. For democracy and capitalism to work, we all must be citizens.
Remember the boxes:
soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box.
Carefully and in that order.
Every time you see a forced ad, write the company advertising and tell them you will no longer buy their product.
If enough people do this, then it will go away.
The "free market" works when consumers view themselves as citizens instead of sheep.
That's an interesting take, "stake holders," I can understand that position, but let me ask you this:
You write a open source application. You poor a lot of time and effort into it. You do it for what ever reason, on-line resume, share what you have, what ever. People take your work and spin off their own project because they disagree with what you want to do. They may assume they have a "stake," but by introducing something do you give them the rights?
More to the point, I have an open source project that I know for a fact has helped a number of companies run their web clusters. It is small, fast, and stable, and I'm working on a new version. I have received a total of $360 dollars since 1998. I get lots of downloads and plenty of emails saying "Dude! this this is great!" I put it out there because I use it and want to share. I've tried selling it, but I.T. is a difficult sell. Back to the point, given the scenario I just gave you, who, besides the guy who sent me $360 for tech-support, should I consider a "stake holder?" The "dude! this is great" guys?
I think a "stake holder" has to be someone who has materially contributed to a project in either cash or time. Mere users in the GPL "Free Software" world, (I know I will get flamed for this) IMHO, deserve less than users of closed or proprietary software, as at least closed source users buy their software. GPL/Free Software users get the software for free, for them to be "true" stake holders they need to make some sort of "stake" in the project.
The "in the future" issue is not about the GPL, it is an issue with law, i.e. you can't change the rules in the middle of the game. So, yes, you are right, you can use GPL code as long as you want, no matter what the new license is.
If the author is the sole author and/or owns all the copyrights, then they can do what ever they like. If, however, they have accepted third party submitions then they may have a legal obligation to remain GPLv2
I don't mean this as a flame, but I'm sure it will be mod'ed as such, but this needs to be said.
I used to really worry about trusting business, especially MY business, on Linux. "Who" would support me? What about my data? What if it breaks, etc.
After spending more than a decade using Linux as my OS of choice, my worries about Linux are almost gone, but I have realized that there are bigger worries that people don't even realize they have to deal with with Windows.
Microsoft is a single company, and if not an out right monopoly, certainly a virtual one. They are in the position to make autocratic decisions regardless of customer demands. DRM? Discontinuing Windows XP? If my company had a product that people wanted, I wouldn't be able to, responsibly, stop shipping it.
The average office is held hostage to Microsoft's whims. Vista is a perfect example. It breaks existing applications, it needs far more resources to run. It has a much more draconian set of licensing restrictions and obligations. Yet, Microsoft can STILL stop Windows XP regardless of the customer need.
Linux is better. If the company you have decides to change and break your applications, you don't have to upgrade. You can, more or less, add the "cool" new features of the new release without breaking your system.
The average home user goes it alone, they either do it themselves, have a nerd-buddy, or use something like geek squad. Medium to large size offices typically have IT management services, and the Linux model is typically better for them, if it were not for vendor.
If ODF takes off enough to the point where "Microsoft Office" is optional, you'll see a lot of companies switching users to Linux just for the TCO. (M$ TCO FUD not withstanding)
Like other posters, I am at a loss at where to start.
(1) If you don't have encryption, GOOD ENCRYPTION, you can't protect squat.
(2) "Self Destruct" is interesting, but unless you have a custom micro-controller on the ram stick, AND an independent power supply, AND the device potted in epoxy, it is all just a made for TV gimmick.
(3) Password.exe? I didn't see this in the article, but what happens if one plugs it into a Mac, Linux, FreeBSD, etc? Does it just work or does it self destruct?
(4) With reference to #2, since the article showed that one could make the device read-only, would self-destruct no longer work? If so, it MUST be potted in epoxy.
(5) Does the "self destruct" operate on the PC or th ram stick? We all know if it runs on the PC, it is doomed to fail.
If they want to REALLY do this:
(1) before everything, encrypt the data. This buys the device time to operate and basic security.
(2) Install a PIC or something that MUST have an encoded heart beat with some sort of hard to reproduce calculated byte pattern.
(3) Without a valid heart beat, the PIC will simply not enable the flash device.
(4) With a valid heart beat, the system must pass a valid password hash string within a reasonable amount of time to the PIC, or the data will be destroyed.
(5) After a number of failed attempts, the PIC will destroy the data.
(6) When the heart beat stops, the PIC disables the flash. (It is presumed that the software clears he file system cache as well.)
(7) Pot the damned device in epoxy.
I'm sure this is tongue in cheek, but evolution is far more complex than that. I think it is safe to say that biological based flight has no darwinian basis in current or proposed theory.
However, lots of neat theories are "evolving."
So, the former "top of the food chain" eventually becomes the staple to the successors of mere vermin in his time.
In a few tens of millions of years, tiny little human decedents will be eaten by large intelligent mice.
So far, I've never seen a cell phone that will let me look at my calendar while I'm talking on the phone. Or enter an item into my to-do list. Or look up some contact information that a friend of mine doesn't have. (*ring* *ring* "Hey, do you have Jeff's phone number?" "Sure, got it right here.")
While you may not have seen it, it is merely a UI problem. Since most CellDrones walk around with hands-free (wire or bluetooth) seemingly talking to themselves, there is no reason why you should be able to do what you want.
There is a definite positive correlation between the time you need your organizational information (calendar, contacts, etc.), and times that you are on the phone. And that's why, to me, in the ideal world, my PDA is separate from my phone.
Again, with "hands-free" a phone is a PDA. There is no reason why a phone (merely a computer) can't multitask.
OK, lets be honest, we all need our cell phones.
Some of us need our blackberries.
We all want our music.
Rather than juggle all three, there is no reason why the cell phone can't do everything and more. After all a computer, whether it is in a P.C., Cellphone, or what ever is still a computer.
IMHO, Palm is wrong, they are coming into the system from the wrong direction, they MUST focus on the phone first and most, then blackberry, then MP3 player. Deliver a package to Verizon, Cingular, Orange, etc.
This is why iPhone will do better.
If you don't like their actions, refuse to buy their products, let them know why you won't buy their products. Wake up sheeple, entertainment is not worth the loss of rights. RIAA, MPAA, et. al. would have no money or power were you not to give it to them.
Sorry, extra monitors rock.
In my office I have two 19" 1280x1024 monitors on an NVidia card. It is just so much easier to work. Seriously.
(1) Since most all documentation is digital and not pressed trees, I don't have the luxury of a book on my desk, but with two monitors I can leave a PDF on one monitor.
(2) Since I have two pretty large monitors, I can look at API docs, technical articles, AND my development environment merely by moving my eyes.
When I have to work on my laptop, I feel so constrained, and it takes so much time to work because I have to constantly switch windows or desktops, its just a pain.
IMHO you need either a large monitor or two monitors because there aren't any books anymore. My brain's memory registers get filled up when I work, I don't have any spares to flash memorize API docs, API examples while I am writing code. It is easier, and quicker, to simply glance right or left.
It is a good thing that the site is under creative commons license. If they do "gag" P.J., then magically, I'm sure, Groklaw2 will pop up and appear hosted by someone, with a different web master while P.J. gets a well deserved rest.