I suppose that advertisers could "measure" the effectiveness of their advertising by how sales are affected. Unless I am not understanding correctly, it sounds to me that advertisers want to verify that folks are listening to their advertisements. Can you imagine if televeision and radio broadcast advertisers wanted to try to find something similar? Measure the sales. That sounds simple enough for me.
Let me try to make this clear. ANY COUNTRY IS FREE TO DEVELOP AND DEPLOY THEIR OWN TECHNOLOGY. They are free to develop their own world network and protocols and share them with whomever they please.
That means they more or less have an infrastructure to be able to develop their own world network and protocols. Like I said, they are free to develop their own technology and share it.
"...nothing gives USA any rights to decide for the rest of the world, not even on the Internet of which the majority of users and cabling is OUTSIDE USA"
the Internet was developed in the U.S. originally by the U.S. Armed Forces. Americans thought of it first, developed it, and shared the technology. If other countries don't like that, then they are free to develop thier own world wide network.
Exactly. Having things the way they are keeps a lot of the international politics out of the picture. Granted, there are those throughout the world who do not like that the non-profit company happens to be in the U.S., but standards would degrade and become ridiculous if left to an organization who would politicize every aspect of the Internet control. Besides, getting U.N. members even to so much as agree as to the time of day is a challenge in and of itself:-P
I've read a lot here about how Gaim seems to work for us nerds. Gaim works fine for me. But the author says that we should not be the only target audience.
Younger folks are in fact turned on by the bells and whistles. They want these features. I find it interesting that many of us want Linux and Open Source in general to continue gaining momentum; however, it also seems like we want people to be geeks like us as well. That's not going to happen. I periodically look through Linux news groups. Often when a newbie posts a question that may be obvious to an experienced user, that person is basically told how stupid he or she is. That's not always how it is, but definitely frequently. If want people to try out what we love, then we need to be prepared to expect that there are many folks who don't know how to find documentation. They want software and what not - like their Windows counterparts - to start it up and be ready to go as well as do most anything that they were able to do previously. Tabbed windows are nice, but we need more than that to make a sale.
Bells and whistles aside, some basic functionality like file transfer really does stink in our IM clients. I think that maintaining functionality and compatiblility between platforms is a fair. Even if our clients don't support things like IM-background sharing, I think things like file transfer should be something to support.
Unless, of course, this is all just empty posturing from various non-US nations. That remains to be seen.
Touché. As mentioned earlier, the Internet has indeed proved to be useful beyond what the folks who originally pioneered it imagined. I disagree, however, that the U.S. should have to justify anything to the U.N. Had the Internet been developed by Russia, for example, I can't see the U.S. or any other nation trying to use the U.N. to force control of it away simply because that nation wants a piece of its control. It was developed in the U.S. and that's the way it is.
If another nation had developed the Internet and the U.S. didn't like its management, then I'm sure that the U.S. could develop its own world wide network. You see, that's my point. There are enough resources globally - financial, personnel, equipment, and otherwise - for nations to work together to build a world wide network to meet the needs and/or wishes of people globally.
"...will only cause others to bail out and the US Internet to become worthless." If there was a competing network, then U.S. Internet management would be more likely to make changes to attract and keep people. I think that developing a competing network vice using the U.N. to strong arm the U.S. is the way to go. That would be like using the government to strong arm iPod away from Apple because other people didn't want to invest in a competing product and business model.
Consider Microsoft Windows. Many people have not been pleased with Microsoft's dominance. Rather than using the government to strong arm Microsoft into becoming an open source project, developers world wide have collaborated on a competing system to meet needs that Microsoft has not or has not been willing to meet. As a result, Microsoft has been making changes in priority in such areas as security in order to be competitive with gaining momentum of Linux. Moreover, Linux and other projects such as Mozilla Firefox have made computing safer for everyone including people who do not even use those products. You see, competition is far more effective than stealing.
A lot of people in this world seem to be happy with large governing entities seizing control of other people's work. But, maybe part of the problem in why I don't follow that logic is that I think too much like a capitalist who has more faith in competition than socialist strong arming.
Hence... If other countries have a problem with that, then they are more than free to develop their own world wide network and their own standards. No one, including the U.S., is stopping them.
The U.S. shouldn't not to justify anything. It is U.S. innovation. Period. that would be along the lines of a government entity forcing Microsoft to GPL Windows because some other companies can't compete economically. If you don't like Windows, then use something else that works for you. If other coutnries don't like our world wide network, then they can build their own.
The bottom line is that the United States developed the Internet. In fact, it was originally pioneered by the U.S. military. Indeed, the Internet has proven to by useful beyond any of the original expectations. But, the U.S. controls the Internet because America gave birth to it.
If other countries have a problem with that, then they are more than free to develop their own world wide network and their own standards. No one, including the U.S., is stopping them. Countries who do not have the means to innovate would prefer to use the U.N. to force America's innovation away. America controls it because America built it.
Russia could probably get something going if they work it correctly. I am sure that this kind of business could be more profitable than selling nuclear technology and Soviet-era weapons to other countires. It's honest business, and can generate a huge amount of $$$.
Windows is insecure by design and open source applications have many people looking at the code and fixing bugs quickly.
Let's make sure that we are keeping things on the same playing field. Here, you are talking about a proprietary operating system in comparison to open source applications. I'm sure that your point was more oriented toward the discussion of security between proprietary and open source in general, so there is no more need for a discussion in semantics.
I disagree, however, that software becomes less secure as it gains popularity. That seems to imply that the developers become less dedicated to the quality of their work, and I don't think that's true. Perhaps you are saying that vulnerabilities are more sought and exploited when found. By and large, the open source community does an excellent job of keeping their software secure. That doesn't mean that the code is perfect. If it were perfect then it would never need to be patched and that's regardless of which ever side of the fence you like prefer to play.
In my opinion, Microsoft Windows was flawed not only by design but in commitment to end users. The Open Source Community's commitment to providing quality operating systems and software to end users has always been there; it was never about the money. This is an embarrassment, but the commitment to end users will only continue to improve. Microsoft, however, has made some good steps toward providing better security for their products including Windows. Additionally, I think that this has been in direct response to competition from open source with regard to security. If the Open Source Community's advocacy were baseless then I seriously doubt that Microsoft would have - and continue to - devote resources to make some improvements. So in a sense, open source makes everyone's computing more secure.
You do bring up a good point in mentioning the increase of attacks as popularity increases. People have been discussing this for a while, and this attack is a clear example of that. Another contributor stated this may also indicate Firefox's growing popularity - and that's a good thing. Again, the open source community does an excellent job of posting fixes rapidly after they are discovered vice, shall we say, lumping them into a monthly update. Still, as I have also mentioned elsewhere that we cannot rule the human element in maintaining system security. And that, too, is regardless of whatever tickles one's fancy.
Most importantly, though, I believe that the Open Source Community will learn from this lesson rather than be doomed to repeat over and over again as Microsoft has.
It's fortunate that the vast majority of people won't hear about this or something like it.
Actually, I came across this at Google News prior to stopping Slashdot. It's hard to say how much press coverage it will get. I suppose it all depends on whether or not the FUD spinners feel they can use this to show that Open Source is no more secure than proprietary software. Be that as it may, software is a huge part of the picture; however, you can't rule out the the impact that the human factor and the choices that admins make (or fail to do so) have in maintaining system security.
I am sure that there are some folks out there looking for something like this to blast open source enthusiasts and the like with a big "Ha! You no better than we are. Told you so!". Moreover, I am sure that there will be some who will somehow try to link this vulnerability exploit with the browser itself.
As mentioned previously, it happens to the best of us, so we all need to be on top of keeping up with patches and installing them.
I concur. As corporations globalize, their lobbying efforts will globalize proportionally.
Over at Groklaw, PJ touches on this in an article about Internet Archive being sued article She makes good points such as recommending that site owners utilize subscriptions to protect content that they do not wish to be open to the public domain. The is also a discussion of the robots.txt file that many sites use and search engines honor voluntarily.
Search engines are tremendously effective tools for bringing visitors to web content. Without them, many web sites would go unnoticed. I don't see that attacking the search engines will be effective. I believe that simple solutions such as those PJ has touched on are readily available and easy to implement rather than resorting to such extensive legislation, and I agree that this is what we as citizens need to convey this to our respective governments.
Linux frequently supports a lot of hardware out of the box. Some folks argue that there is better hardware support for Windows. And that is true in and of itself. However, how often when installing a Windows operating system do yo need a load of driver CDs to accompany the installation? In my experience: always, especially if there is additional hardware such as a printer.
Linux, on the other, is frequently distributed with drivers for suppoorted hardware out of the box. What's better is that as Linux grows in popularity, so will the hardware support.
...in other words, it's like crashing in with the cavalry to save the day after war is over...... or getting a virus definition update aftr your computer is infected...
That sounds impressive. Will there much of a market for these processors after Apple makes the conversion to Intel? I can understand upgrading the G5 line... but after that, then what?
Reasons that I ever used the Google Toolbar in IE include ad-blocking and quick google searching. Both of those are included with Firefox, so I never had a need for the toolbar again.
What I find cool is that although I personally do not have a need or a desire for the toolbar, others are now recognizing and supporting software for open source projects. It's nice to see that others besides us geeks view Firefox as a real and serious alternative rather than treating web browsing as the IP of Microsoft.
Geeze. I thought that folks had gotten carried away over Star Trek and M&M collecting.... just wait 'till we see a new meaning of the phrase "block party weekend":-)
Larger and/or more efficient storage is nice. For me, however, hard drives are large enough for my purpses. I am more interested *faster* storage. Imagine if a hard drive could be accessed as quickly as RAM.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose that advertisers could "measure" the effectiveness of their advertising by how sales are affected. Unless I am not understanding correctly, it sounds to me that advertisers want to verify that folks are listening to their advertisements. Can you imagine if televeision and radio broadcast advertisers wanted to try to find something similar? Measure the sales. That sounds simple enough for me.
:-P
Have a nice day:)
That means they more or less have an infrastructure to be able to develop their own world network and protocols. Like I said, they are free to develop their own technology and share it.
the Internet was developed in the U.S. originally by the U.S. Armed Forces. Americans thought of it first, developed it, and shared the technology. If other countries don't like that, then they are free to develop thier own world wide network.
Exactly. Having things the way they are keeps a lot of the international politics out of the picture. Granted, there are those throughout the world who do not like that the non-profit company happens to be in the U.S., but standards would degrade and become ridiculous if left to an organization who would politicize every aspect of the Internet control. Besides, getting U.N. members even to so much as agree as to the time of day is a challenge in and of itself :-P
Younger folks are in fact turned on by the bells and whistles. They want these features. I find it interesting that many of us want Linux and Open Source in general to continue gaining momentum; however, it also seems like we want people to be geeks like us as well. That's not going to happen. I periodically look through Linux news groups. Often when a newbie posts a question that may be obvious to an experienced user, that person is basically told how stupid he or she is. That's not always how it is, but definitely frequently. If want people to try out what we love, then we need to be prepared to expect that there are many folks who don't know how to find documentation. They want software and what not - like their Windows counterparts - to start it up and be ready to go as well as do most anything that they were able to do previously. Tabbed windows are nice, but we need more than that to make a sale.
Bells and whistles aside, some basic functionality like file transfer really does stink in our IM clients. I think that maintaining functionality and compatiblility between platforms is a fair. Even if our clients don't support things like IM-background sharing, I think things like file transfer should be something to support.
Unless, of course, this is all just empty posturing from various non-US nations. That remains to be seen.
Touché. As mentioned earlier, the Internet has indeed proved to be useful beyond what the folks who originally pioneered it imagined. I disagree, however, that the U.S. should have to justify anything to the U.N. Had the Internet been developed by Russia, for example, I can't see the U.S. or any other nation trying to use the U.N. to force control of it away simply because that nation wants a piece of its control. It was developed in the U.S. and that's the way it is.
If another nation had developed the Internet and the U.S. didn't like its management, then I'm sure that the U.S. could develop its own world wide network. You see, that's my point. There are enough resources globally - financial, personnel, equipment, and otherwise - for nations to work together to build a world wide network to meet the needs and/or wishes of people globally.
"...will only cause others to bail out and the US Internet to become worthless." If there was a competing network, then U.S. Internet management would be more likely to make changes to attract and keep people. I think that developing a competing network vice using the U.N. to strong arm the U.S. is the way to go. That would be like using the government to strong arm iPod away from Apple because other people didn't want to invest in a competing product and business model.
Consider Microsoft Windows. Many people have not been pleased with Microsoft's dominance. Rather than using the government to strong arm Microsoft into becoming an open source project, developers world wide have collaborated on a competing system to meet needs that Microsoft has not or has not been willing to meet. As a result, Microsoft has been making changes in priority in such areas as security in order to be competitive with gaining momentum of Linux. Moreover, Linux and other projects such as Mozilla Firefox have made computing safer for everyone including people who do not even use those products. You see, competition is far more effective than stealing.
A lot of people in this world seem to be happy with large governing entities seizing control of other people's work. But, maybe part of the problem in why I don't follow that logic is that I think too much like a capitalist who has more faith in competition than socialist strong arming.
"shouldn't not" was supposed to be "should not". Sorry about that.
Hence... If other countries have a problem with that, then they are more than free to develop their own world wide network and their own standards. No one, including the U.S., is stopping them.
The U.S. shouldn't not to justify anything. It is U.S. innovation. Period. that would be along the lines of a government entity forcing Microsoft to GPL Windows because some other companies can't compete economically. If you don't like Windows, then use something else that works for you. If other coutnries don't like our world wide network, then they can build their own.
The bottom line is that the United States developed the Internet. In fact, it was originally pioneered by the U.S. military. Indeed, the Internet has proven to by useful beyond any of the original expectations. But, the U.S. controls the Internet because America gave birth to it.
If other countries have a problem with that, then they are more than free to develop their own world wide network and their own standards. No one, including the U.S., is stopping them. Countries who do not have the means to innovate would prefer to use the U.N. to force America's innovation away. America controls it because America built it.
"If the moon landings were faked" Do not try and land on the moon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth: There is no moon. :-P
Russia could probably get something going if they work it correctly. I am sure that this kind of business could be more profitable than selling nuclear technology and Soviet-era weapons to other countires. It's honest business, and can generate a huge amount of $$$.
Let's make sure that we are keeping things on the same playing field. Here, you are talking about a proprietary operating system in comparison to open source applications. I'm sure that your point was more oriented toward the discussion of security between proprietary and open source in general, so there is no more need for a discussion in semantics.
I disagree, however, that software becomes less secure as it gains popularity. That seems to imply that the developers become less dedicated to the quality of their work, and I don't think that's true. Perhaps you are saying that vulnerabilities are more sought and exploited when found. By and large, the open source community does an excellent job of keeping their software secure. That doesn't mean that the code is perfect. If it were perfect then it would never need to be patched and that's regardless of which ever side of the fence you like prefer to play.
In my opinion, Microsoft Windows was flawed not only by design but in commitment to end users. The Open Source Community's commitment to providing quality operating systems and software to end users has always been there; it was never about the money. This is an embarrassment, but the commitment to end users will only continue to improve. Microsoft, however, has made some good steps toward providing better security for their products including Windows. Additionally, I think that this has been in direct response to competition from open source with regard to security. If the Open Source Community's advocacy were baseless then I seriously doubt that Microsoft would have - and continue to - devote resources to make some improvements. So in a sense, open source makes everyone's computing more secure.
You do bring up a good point in mentioning the increase of attacks as popularity increases. People have been discussing this for a while, and this attack is a clear example of that. Another contributor stated this may also indicate Firefox's growing popularity - and that's a good thing. Again, the open source community does an excellent job of posting fixes rapidly after they are discovered vice, shall we say, lumping them into a monthly update. Still, as I have also mentioned elsewhere that we cannot rule the human element in maintaining system security. And that, too, is regardless of whatever tickles one's fancy.
Most importantly, though, I believe that the Open Source Community will learn from this lesson rather than be doomed to repeat over and over again as Microsoft has.
Actually, I came across this at Google News prior to stopping Slashdot. It's hard to say how much press coverage it will get. I suppose it all depends on whether or not the FUD spinners feel they can use this to show that Open Source is no more secure than proprietary software. Be that as it may, software is a huge part of the picture; however, you can't rule out the the impact that the human factor and the choices that admins make (or fail to do so) have in maintaining system security.
As mentioned previously, it happens to the best of us, so we all need to be on top of keeping up with patches and installing them.
Nope, but take from it what you will :)
Over at Groklaw, PJ touches on this in an article about Internet Archive being sued article She makes good points such as recommending that site owners utilize subscriptions to protect content that they do not wish to be open to the public domain. The is also a discussion of the robots.txt file that many sites use and search engines honor voluntarily.
Search engines are tremendously effective tools for bringing visitors to web content. Without them, many web sites would go unnoticed. I don't see that attacking the search engines will be effective. I believe that simple solutions such as those PJ has touched on are readily available and easy to implement rather than resorting to such extensive legislation, and I agree that this is what we as citizens need to convey this to our respective governments.
Okay, roll for geekdom :P
Linux frequently supports a lot of hardware out of the box. Some folks argue that there is better hardware support for Windows. And that is true in and of itself. However, how often when installing a Windows operating system do yo need a load of driver CDs to accompany the installation? In my experience: always, especially if there is additional hardware such as a printer. Linux, on the other, is frequently distributed with drivers for suppoorted hardware out of the box. What's better is that as Linux grows in popularity, so will the hardware support.
...in other words, it's like crashing in with the cavalry to save the day after war is over... ... or getting a virus definition update aftr your computer is infected...
etc.
That sounds impressive. Will there much of a market for these processors after Apple makes the conversion to Intel? I can understand upgrading the G5 line... but after that, then what?
Reasons that I ever used the Google Toolbar in IE include ad-blocking and quick google searching. Both of those are included with Firefox, so I never had a need for the toolbar again. What I find cool is that although I personally do not have a need or a desire for the toolbar, others are now recognizing and supporting software for open source projects. It's nice to see that others besides us geeks view Firefox as a real and serious alternative rather than treating web browsing as the IP of Microsoft.
Geeze. I thought that folks had gotten carried away over Star Trek and M&M collecting. ... just wait 'till we see a new meaning of the phrase "block party weekend" :-)
Larger and/or more efficient storage is nice. For me, however, hard drives are large enough for my purpses. I am more interested *faster* storage. Imagine if a hard drive could be accessed as quickly as RAM.