For some reason, I keep thinking that this patent may have come from a result of work done by Boeing for the US Government, and by extension, the people of the united states, paid for by the people of the united state, and by some extension, should therefore be in the public domain.
This is an issue I have with all government contracting. Not with the contracting itself. But rather, the people at large keep getting sold on the concept of 'trickle down' markets that result from all this high powered, high dollar money spent on these gigantic projects.
The US government, by extension 'the people' decide they want something done, like nifty stuff in space. Bids go out, the people pay for the work to be done, the patents resulting should go to the people. If Boeing wants to use these patents, they should pay a license to the people, as should anyone else. If that isn't fair, then the patent should go into the public domain, it was, after all, paid for by the public.
Yeah, certainly this position is arguable. No, I'm not certain this line of thought is correct, it's just an impression.
Rebuttals welcomed.
Honestly, I'm quite surprised. I was rather expecting there to be a big stink over this, but apparently not. Well, it worked for Tom Delay, I guess it should work for Microsoft.
"The chair of Yale's CS department and Connecticut's former consumer protection commissioner "
Is just another $perjorative-slander who doesn't get it.
'Consumer protection'
How about civil rights? Where in the bill of rights does it
say anything about consumers?
understand that more than just a few of us blackhole doubleclick.net for a plethora of reasons, and keeps doubleclick stuff on doubleclick's networks, it's fine with me.
these days.
As a cheap skate/often poor, older fellow. I've been known to keep obsolete, worn out, bad-idea stuff running, way past their useful life by applying all kinds of kludgy rube goldberg-esque approaches.
Why do these approaches seem like they stem from the same mindset?
How wise approaches like these actually are.
Since all storms, (and all weather events for that matter) are about moving towards equilibrium.
I guess if folks haven't learned yet what steering nature does over the long
haul by now, then they just aren't able to learn.
Strip corporations of their "personhood". Reinstate, or restate what a corporation may be, and clearly state what it may not be, as they were prior to getting legal personhood.
I think others have already pointed this out.
Further, the "more trouble than it's worth"
is a non sequitur.
Ethenol is at least theoretically sustainable.
Oil based fuel is not.
There are other links. (that wasn't *MY* link btw, it was a reference).
Good ole Pollard's page concerning spf is very rantish, true. But if you think that's bad, try having an exchange with him sometime.:0
However, that doesn't make him wrong. The primary criticism of spf lies in the "it's not an anti-spam measure, it's a reputation system" mantra on the one hand, coupled with "spf is a great anti-spam tool" on the other. There's something strange about this
approach.
Again, I can continue to point folks to the marid archives http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/mail12.html and ask them to read for themselves. But overall; for my 2cents, spf relies on dns to do things it isn't designed to do, in order to accomplish things I feel (and others) are better accomplished
in other ways. A very short list begins with bringing MX and SMTP hosts up to full compliance with the published relevant rfcs and their bcp recomendations. That would be a better start, imho, than just jumping on spf.
As to the antiquated features, well, a lot of them are still very much in use, and still very valid. Agreed, hardly anyone still does uucp email anymore, and I dropped support for bang-path email when I moved to Postfix last year. Those 1 percenters are still real however, and the job of the postmaster is to see that the mail gets delivered, not dropped. And to take the extra effort if required.
There was a really nice presentation on this at MAAWG a couple of months back.
and btw, I will always criticise stuff that breaks things that are configured correctly and according to the published best current practices.
Also that rational was only one of many considerations for totally rejecting it.
"Anyone who makes statements like this truely doesn't understand the purpose of SPF."
Did I say spf was designed to stop spam?
uhh, nope.
SPF breaks things, and fixes nothing.
A primer on some broken things;
http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/s mtp-spf-is-harmful.html
As to me not understanding, that's an assumption on your part.
I spent a lot of time in the marid working group.
I thought this was a very interesting concept.
I paid attention, I participated.
I, as in *I* decided, that for my users, it held
no value.
I am certainly not at all alone in this point of view.
I know it's not a troll.
What I meant, (and didn't expressly state) is that stuff that annoys folks, breaks communication, fragments the internet, I don't think is a good thing.
This move by Microsoft, -while some would say is typical- is kinda a shame. It just fragments things, creates frustration, and is awkward.
The end result is likely to be a better thing, yes.
Been wanting to get friends to get off the hotmail bandwagon for years.
As an isp, I'd be telling my customers to
tell their friends who use hotmail to get on the stick and
go to yahoo or gmail before november so their
ability to communicate isn't cut off.
Please note, SenderID and SPF are both bad ideas.
SPF didn't start off that way. In fact it made a strange
kind of sense. It was co-opted. The IETF marid working group
archives are a great place to go read about how MS
really helped screw the pooch.
Hotmail and MSN orphaning themselves is probably a
good thing in the long run. It's a shame though.
And yes, I publish spf records, no I do not make use
of them. They are not useful.
But there's more.
IBM is a full on "bootstrap" business.
Microsoft wouldn't be anything like the Microsoft
we know today, if IBM hadn't made such a terrible
mistake in "licensing" software from Microsoft
in the first place.
All Microsoft needed at the time, was one really
big sucker. IBM fit that bill (har har)
In short, Microsoft as we know it today, (for better or worse) is the result of one really bad
move on IBMs part.
Cut it anyway you like. Despite the reality of
that situation. It's rather difficult to see
how that scales into being the model of business
that many folks think.
It would be closer to reality to compare MS
to someone who hit the lottery, and then
managed their money well.
This on it's face looks pretty good.
on
The Death of Folders?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
But the very concept of having millions of
files just scattered about in a completely
flat heirarchy, well, doesn't seem like a really
good way to handle your company's data.
I use the verizon EvDO service with my linux laptop.
I find the service at least as good as most "wifi hotspots" speed wise. And it doesn't break
my ssh sessions all the time, isn't filtered, and has a host of other benfits.
I've used my laptop, the pc5220, and an OpenWRT
wrt54g to set up "free mobile hotspots" at star
parties and such, and had it work "ok" for the
3 or 4 other folks using it.
It's a pretty good service.
Not sure where you get the barely comparable
to a 56K modem from. This is true for 1xRTT
service, but at least it's there.
The thing about the service that does suck
is the latency to the dns servers. While I can
type reasonably well in a remote ssh session,
the ping times to my dns servers is often
in excess of 300ms, which is pretty bogus.
" Nobody would've claimed that 10.0 was a "massive speed improvement" over 9.2.2 "
Your right, no person did. But I'm pretty
sure there was some Apple hype about how
much better, faster, more responsive,
OSX was over 9.2.2.
But I could very well be wrong.
On the other note, I think 10.3.x (panther)
is (on appropriate hardware) more responsive
than 9.2.2
But, yes, point taken.
10.3.x works quite well on Apple's current run of machines, the G4 powerbooks and such. I've always been a bit cynical about Apple handing out bloatware to punish the Apple faithful.
Now, the hype will say that Tiger will be/faster/ than Panther, (which really was faster than Jaguar, big suprise!) and so on.
If this hype were based in reality, Then Tiger should run like a raped ape on a Mac IIci, (which shipped I think with 6.2) as every Mac OS increment has always claimed performance improvements over the existing product.
I have over 30 "modern" deployed at work. I am not at all happy about the impending release of Tiger. not without a significant bump in available hardware. Yes, the dual g5 (maybe quad soon?) is a wonderful box, but even with Panther, fully updated, it IMHO only runs as it should. You ask it to do something, it does it. No more, no less. Like Word Perfect 4.2 on DOS on a 286 (my personal benchmark of performance). I've always felt that over the years the good folks at Apple bring stuff to a nice plateau, and then punish us by bringing out an OS that chokes our none-too-cheap hardware that WE JUST BOUGHT.
Please Apple, hold this OS until you update the platform (give us SLi) and then warn the drooling macophiles that you'd do well to stick with Panther until you can upgrade your hardware.
Thaz all.
--what's happening up the hollar? http://www.bearwallerhollar.net
"The whole Sklyyarov thing was a bad chapter for Adobe, but they reversed themselves and apologized, IIRC, and it happened quite awhile ago.
"
The whole Sklyarov thing was the result of a corporate culture very much in play to this day.
The bar that was raised to snatch and imprison
Sklyarov hasn't been lowered despite Adobe's
public Mea Culpa's. (Which fall on deaf ears).
To what extent has Adobe financially contributed
to the EFF in an attempt to undo what they did?
Not very much.
3ware,
It's a waste of/my/ time. So I really don't
care what the tweakers think.
The 3ware cards are reliable, easy to deal
with, have brilliant drivers, good software,
and they WORK!
Always!
I have a 5 of them. I have a friend who has 40,
he agrees.
I use a 2 channel as a backup-to-sata drive, (cheaper than tape), another 2 channel in a
IIS server for payroll stuff, 1 4 channel for
a mail server and 2 8 channels for file/web.
I love'em.
Nuff said.
who clog the pipes for a living. Read "phb".
I would go into it, but Nat (of Collabra/Netscape)
says it best.
"Groupware Bad"
http://www.jwz.org/doc/groupware.html
(yes, the same link that Doc posted on his blog).
the way the law works. Learn something about intention and public referendum.
The "Gubbmint" ALWAYS claims that it's actions
are community actions. See Bush's "Public
Mandate" for an example.
Communities doing this ALSO threaten by greedhead
monopolists. Don't for one minute think they
will leave you alone. Anyone connected for free
is money out of their pockets.
Slashdot Mirror
For some reason, I keep thinking that this patent may have come from a result of work done by Boeing for the US Government, and by extension, the people of the united states, paid for by the people of the united state, and by some extension, should therefore be in the public domain.
This is an issue I have with all government contracting. Not with the contracting itself. But rather, the people at large keep getting sold on the concept of 'trickle down' markets that result from all this high powered, high dollar money spent on these gigantic projects.
The US government, by extension 'the people' decide they want something done, like nifty stuff in space. Bids go out, the people pay for the work to be done, the patents resulting should go to the people. If Boeing wants to use these patents, they should pay a license to the people, as should anyone else. If that isn't fair, then the patent should go into the public domain, it was, after all, paid for by the public.
Yeah, certainly this position is arguable. No, I'm not certain this line of thought is correct, it's just an impression. Rebuttals welcomed.
Honestly, I'm quite surprised. I was rather expecting there to be a big stink over this, but apparently not. Well, it worked for Tom Delay, I guess it should work for Microsoft.
"The chair of Yale's CS department and Connecticut's former consumer protection commissioner " Is just another $perjorative-slander who doesn't get it. 'Consumer protection' How about civil rights? Where in the bill of rights does it say anything about consumers?
understand that more than just a few of us blackhole doubleclick.net for a plethora of reasons, and keeps doubleclick stuff on doubleclick's networks, it's fine with me.
these days. As a cheap skate/often poor, older fellow. I've been known to keep obsolete, worn out, bad-idea stuff running, way past their useful life by applying all kinds of kludgy rube goldberg-esque approaches. Why do these approaches seem like they stem from the same mindset?
Well, that about wraps it up for (insert whatever right you thought you had).
How wise approaches like these actually are. Since all storms, (and all weather events for that matter) are about moving towards equilibrium. I guess if folks haven't learned yet what steering nature does over the long haul by now, then they just aren't able to learn.
The first thing.
Strip corporations of their "personhood". Reinstate, or restate
what a corporation may be, and clearly state what it may not
be, as they were prior to getting legal personhood.
All the rest will follow.
Interesting link, thanks for passing it along.
As to the liability, use a redirect gateway, with an end user agreement click through.
You can be sued for anything, the eua goes a good distance to showing due diligence.
I think others have already pointed this out. Further, the "more trouble than it's worth" is a non sequitur. Ethenol is at least theoretically sustainable. Oil based fuel is not.
Good ole Pollard's page concerning spf is very rantish, true. But if you think that's bad, try having an exchange with him sometime.:0
However, that doesn't make him wrong. The primary criticism of spf lies in the "it's not an anti-spam measure, it's a reputation system" mantra on the one hand, coupled with "spf is a great anti-spam tool" on the other. There's something strange about this approach.
Again, I can continue to point folks to the marid archives http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/mail12 .html and ask them to read for themselves. But overall; for my 2cents, spf relies on dns to do things it isn't designed to do, in order to accomplish things I feel (and others) are better accomplished
in other ways. A very short list begins with bringing MX and SMTP hosts up to full compliance with the published relevant rfcs and their bcp recomendations. That would be a better start, imho, than just jumping on spf.
As to the antiquated features, well, a lot of them are still very much in use, and still very valid. Agreed, hardly anyone still does uucp email anymore, and I dropped support for bang-path email when I moved to Postfix last year. Those 1 percenters are still real however, and the job of the postmaster is to see that the mail gets delivered, not dropped. And to take the extra effort if required.
There was a really nice presentation on this at MAAWG a couple of months back.
and btw, I will always criticise stuff that breaks things that are configured correctly and according to the published best current practices.
Also that rational was only one of many considerations for totally rejecting it.
"Anyone who makes statements like this truely doesn't understand the purpose of SPF." Did I say spf was designed to stop spam? uhh, nope. SPF breaks things, and fixes nothing. A primer on some broken things; http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/s mtp-spf-is-harmful.html
As to me not understanding, that's an assumption on your part.
I spent a lot of time in the marid working group.
I thought this was a very interesting concept.
I paid attention, I participated.
I, as in *I* decided, that for my users, it held
no value.
I am certainly not at all alone in this point of view.
I know it's not a troll. What I meant, (and didn't expressly state) is that stuff that annoys folks, breaks communication, fragments the internet, I don't think is a good thing. This move by Microsoft, -while some would say is typical- is kinda a shame. It just fragments things, creates frustration, and is awkward. The end result is likely to be a better thing, yes.
Been wanting to get friends to get off the hotmail bandwagon for years. As an isp, I'd be telling my customers to tell their friends who use hotmail to get on the stick and go to yahoo or gmail before november so their ability to communicate isn't cut off. Please note, SenderID and SPF are both bad ideas. SPF didn't start off that way. In fact it made a strange kind of sense. It was co-opted. The IETF marid working group archives are a great place to go read about how MS really helped screw the pooch. Hotmail and MSN orphaning themselves is probably a good thing in the long run. It's a shame though. And yes, I publish spf records, no I do not make use of them. They are not useful.
But there's more. IBM is a full on "bootstrap" business. Microsoft wouldn't be anything like the Microsoft we know today, if IBM hadn't made such a terrible mistake in "licensing" software from Microsoft in the first place. All Microsoft needed at the time, was one really big sucker. IBM fit that bill (har har) In short, Microsoft as we know it today, (for better or worse) is the result of one really bad move on IBMs part. Cut it anyway you like. Despite the reality of that situation. It's rather difficult to see how that scales into being the model of business that many folks think. It would be closer to reality to compare MS to someone who hit the lottery, and then managed their money well.
But the very concept of having millions of files just scattered about in a completely flat heirarchy, well, doesn't seem like a really good way to handle your company's data.
I use the verizon EvDO service with my linux laptop. I find the service at least as good as most "wifi hotspots" speed wise. And it doesn't break my ssh sessions all the time, isn't filtered, and has a host of other benfits. I've used my laptop, the pc5220, and an OpenWRT wrt54g to set up "free mobile hotspots" at star parties and such, and had it work "ok" for the 3 or 4 other folks using it. It's a pretty good service. Not sure where you get the barely comparable to a 56K modem from. This is true for 1xRTT service, but at least it's there. The thing about the service that does suck is the latency to the dns servers. While I can type reasonably well in a remote ssh session, the ping times to my dns servers is often in excess of 300ms, which is pretty bogus.
doesn't have a network of macs to administer I'll just bet.
" Nobody would've claimed that 10.0 was a "massive speed improvement" over 9.2.2 " Your right, no person did. But I'm pretty sure there was some Apple hype about how much better, faster, more responsive, OSX was over 9.2.2. But I could very well be wrong. On the other note, I think 10.3.x (panther) is (on appropriate hardware) more responsive than 9.2.2 But, yes, point taken.
current hardware?
/faster/ than Panther, (which really was faster than Jaguar, big suprise!) and so on.
10.3.x works quite well on Apple's current run of machines, the G4 powerbooks and such. I've always been a bit cynical about Apple handing out bloatware to punish the Apple faithful.
Now, the hype will say that Tiger will be
If this hype were based in reality, Then Tiger should run like a raped ape on a Mac IIci, (which
shipped I think with 6.2) as every Mac OS increment has always claimed performance improvements over the existing product.
I have over 30 "modern" deployed at work. I am not at all happy about the impending release of Tiger. not without a significant bump in available hardware. Yes, the dual g5 (maybe quad soon?) is a wonderful box, but even with Panther, fully updated, it IMHO only runs as it should. You ask
it to do something, it does it. No more, no less.
Like Word Perfect 4.2 on DOS on a 286 (my personal
benchmark of performance). I've always felt that over the years the good folks at Apple bring stuff to a nice plateau, and then punish us by bringing out an OS that chokes our none-too-cheap hardware that WE JUST BOUGHT.
Please Apple, hold this OS until you update the platform (give us SLi) and then warn the
drooling macophiles that you'd do well to stick
with Panther until you can upgrade your hardware.
Thaz all.
--what's happening up the hollar?
http://www.bearwallerhollar.net
"The whole Sklyyarov thing was a bad chapter for Adobe, but they reversed themselves and apologized, IIRC, and it happened quite awhile ago. " The whole Sklyarov thing was the result of a corporate culture very much in play to this day. The bar that was raised to snatch and imprison Sklyarov hasn't been lowered despite Adobe's public Mea Culpa's. (Which fall on deaf ears). To what extent has Adobe financially contributed to the EFF in an attempt to undo what they did? Not very much.
3ware, It's a waste of /my/ time. So I really don't
care what the tweakers think.
The 3ware cards are reliable, easy to deal
with, have brilliant drivers, good software,
and they WORK!
Always!
I have a 5 of them. I have a friend who has 40,
he agrees.
I use a 2 channel as a backup-to-sata drive, (cheaper than tape), another 2 channel in a
IIS server for payroll stuff, 1 4 channel for
a mail server and 2 8 channels for file/web.
I love'em.
Nuff said.
who clog the pipes for a living. Read "phb". I would go into it, but Nat (of Collabra/Netscape) says it best. "Groupware Bad" http://www.jwz.org/doc/groupware.html (yes, the same link that Doc posted on his blog).
the way the law works. Learn something about intention and public referendum. The "Gubbmint" ALWAYS claims that it's actions are community actions. See Bush's "Public Mandate" for an example. Communities doing this ALSO threaten by greedhead monopolists. Don't for one minute think they will leave you alone. Anyone connected for free is money out of their pockets.