Is the function of the Microsoft Linux Labs to make Windows software and platform compatible with Linux and F/OSS or to make them only compatible if Windows platform user's buy more licensed software from Microsoft? That is to say, is making F/OSS software more transparent to Microsoft managers, a manner to create interoperability, or to capture it in a licensed group of code?
With all the catching up that Microsoft is trying to do with other software groups lately, is the Linux Lab purposed for any reverse engineering reasons?
Do you have any directive to ensure that F/OSS code doesn't end up in Microsoft software? If not, who at Microsoft does?
The trouble, as I see it in what you say is that the nuances of human communication cannot be fully categorized or recorded. Today in training, the word 'gotcha' may indicate target lock for two team members working in a tank, tomorrow, or even in three hours, it could signify that one team member understands the other. Situational relevance of communication causes extreme difficulty for computers to immitate humans, or even play along. That is why experience and training cannot be substituted with a computer.
I have been part of teams working under pressure, and there is little that I can see of value in a clippy if the team is actually well trained and have worked together.
Human interaction changes dramatically under pressure to perform. Long sentences can become single words or syllables, yet full communication is achieved. An well trained team member begins to anticipate the action of other team members, in ways that clippy cannot do.
The parallel like processing of the human mind still outperforms that of any computer in small paradigms. Even in military situations, no computer application can apply all the relelvant information from other team members and information sources in a way that can replace or even assist in those decisions. If a team member forgets part of their job, it is usually not because s/he is under stress, it is because of lack of training or experience. Substituting computer assistance for training and experience is an EXTREMELY dangerous thing in my opinion, especially where human life is at risk.
Interesting that this round up of security tools is on an IBM website... well, sort of. Wonder if they will be made redundant by Vista?
Sorry, can't help but be happy to see people in the real world, doing valuable things, getting help from large companies, and doing them before and better than MS. The world of computing is changing and MS is already irrelevant... we just don't realize it fully yet.
Personally, I'll be checking out these four tools.
Why shouldn't ideas like this be awarded a patent?
Well, because it is obvious. The triggers for what is exciting in this process is why commercials are so fscking loud on broadcast television. duh!
Further, there are TV programs around the globe that do this, albeit without software. Using a computer to replicate what a human has done is not unique, nor unobvious. It is a blatently obvious application of the tools (computer & software).
Sure, perhaps copyright should apply, but patent? NO, and the copyright should be limited in duration to that of say, 7 years or less. The same function can be done by looking at the parts of a game that are boring, and throwing them away, rather than looking at the exciting parts and keeping them. Duh... Yet another method for sports is to analyze the movement on the screen and decide what is exciting or not, thus the patent in question become frivilous through the fact that there are too many ways to do the same thing, and this patent will not guarantee protection of the inventors use of their invention. That is not to mention that a college intern can do the same thing and produce an identical product. Duh... no patent granted.
That we, as a community ( not just/., but the community of computer users worldwide) begin writing letters and emails to our elected representatives, and to the USPTO et al with regard to how we feel that such blantantly obvious things cannot and should not be patented. If the govt. doesn't understand this, perhaps 255,000 emails will explain it to them? Anything with enough prior art to establish that this is not an innovation, is not unique, nor is it unobvious may not be obvious to the USPTO. Does anyone know where we can write the USPTO to let them know?
Actually the inventor of the "have a nice day" smiley face did not make a dime for that. I saw a show on TLC or somewhere, and he's as broke as me or anyone else. He made nothing for that, which makes him a supporter of sorts for F/OSS!
Its more likely that it is about resources. MS needs time to catch Google, time they don't have, but lawyers they do. While trying to catch up to Google, anything MS can do to hurt Google's bottom line helps MS. Anything they can do now to arm themselves for patent/copyright infringement cases against Google in the future will help MS. This is a huge chess game, and MS has their fingers on ALL the pieces.
Even if it is dismissed as a nuisance suit against Google, chances are that it will hurt Google in some areas, and that is all that MS needs to do while they are catching up. Remember, if MS can't buy a competitor (sometimes even if they can) then their business strategy is to ruin that competitor.
but it seems that many here are mistaking improvement for innovation. Innovation is doing that which has not been done, nor was expected via the conduits of common sense.
Innovation in computing will take some doing. There are plenty of companies that are trying to find and accept new business models and methods, trying to adapt to new threats, both malicious and competition based, but there is no innovation per se'. Unless you want to count multicore processors, low voltage processors, battery and power technologies that are leaps and bounds above previous. These are arguably derivitive works, but they build cornerstones for true innovation.
Innovation in computing, by definition, must change how we use them in some way. The spreadsheet was an innovation. The DOS was an innovation. GUI OS was an innovation. What do we need now?
We need more human like interaction with computers. Grandma doesn't need to know what icon to click if the computer asks her what she wants to do? Little sheila doesn't have to know the innards of Google if all she has to do is ask what is the three main properties of an isotope?
There is an entire new (as yet unexplored) world of computing that is a huge layer between the user and the actual workings of a computer. All the recent 'innovations' in computing and technology bring us that little bit closer to the world of Star Trek computers. The people that help bridge what we have today over to what Star Trek and other futuristic folks have promised are the people that will bring innovation.
The computer is a tool. We use it in different ways, but it is a tool. It really doesn't matter what OS you use, it is still a tool. I envision robots interacting with humans, and in the background use the computer/Internet to help or assist humans. How many times have you asked somebody who that movie actor was? or what is the word that means so and so? or asked people around you what is a word that means blah blah blah? We are born, and grow up, and by accident of birth, we learn and experience what it is that makes us much of what we are (so psychiatrists say) but with the computer and Internet, that can change. When you can ask your robot or PDA what is the identity of the bird that I just heard, then you have innovation. When you can be shopping and ask your robot or pda if this camelback couch is a good deal or not, that is innovation.
When you can type out a shopping list for the grocery store, and a kid shows up when you get home with the items you wanted... that is innovation.
The point is that technology isn't innovation. Innovation is how we use the technology. You can surf progressively faster and faster, but if you continue to surf the same way, there is no innovation.
Perhaps some will argue with me (and TFA is unavailable) but innovation is not new batteries or a different design of laptop. Innovation is how we use the technology and information (that wants to be free by the way).
Innovation is how software makes the information more useful. Right now we still pay lawyers to do patent searches... computers should tell us if there is prior art or patents without paying a lawyer. Information is just information. Sure there are those that want you to pay for it, but any free information should be available in ways that is just not possible now... that is innovation. When your child can ask the computer how many bones are in the human hand, and be shown a picture of them on the 'face' of their personal robot, that is innovation.
Information doesn't want to just be free, it wants to be freely integrated into all of our lives. When there is even just one place in a rural 3rd world country where information like this is available, it doesn't take much to imagine that even the uneducated can ask for help finding a new way to solve a problem and finding how it was solved in all of history in other places. Say a third world company wants to build cars... and they ask the computer for cross reference of their design against all of the worlds minimum requirements for safety? If they got the answer, that is innovation.... well, that is what I want. I'm not holding my breath.
Disclaimer: IANAL and this is not meant as a troll
But with the arrest of a wardriver in Florida, now the prosecution of those who are party to, or induce copyright infringement, not to mention the *AA's seemingly bottomless pocket to pay copyright lawyers and investigators. How long will it be before governments are actively regulating use of the Internet and adjudicating on the legality of how we use any part of it?
I can't see how any of these violations actually fell outside of standard laws and practices, but because they were done using the Internet, it gives a foothold for governments and worse (good intentioned polititians) to intervene in the Internet world and commerce on behalf of the happless millions that don't know how to use an anti-virus program or not to open suspect emails.
Has anyone found anything (news reports, comment, blogs etc.) that gives serious and credible thought or research into this and its likely outcome, with relevant examples of prior legal and political activities relating to similar situations?
I have tried to find relevant information, but can't seem to find it. Just looking for some hints / help in getting more information.
Its time that NASA started investing in more robots. I can see EVA robots doing these checks on all spacecraft in the future, no matter what country the spacecraft has launched from. It only makes sense. I'm sure that such robots can be much more robust and cost effective than a human EVA to check heat shield tiles and other items critical to a safe landing, and high tech scanners, such as are used to check for stress cracks in commercial airliners could be the basis for such robots. Geez, if you spend $500k maybe we could save several hundred million.
A cousin to the inspector robot could also replace the tile when it is sent up on an unmanned spacecraft. Its not like the logistics of this kind of problem aren't worked out everyday around the globe. Many of the people and businesses in Florida et al have just gone through the process. Yes, you need a part, but can't buy it or steal it from anywhere, so you have to wait for the next shipment etc. Just make sure the astronauts pack a few extra meals. Sure, the cost of shipping that extra part could be hundred thousand dollars or more, but that is cheaper than losing a shuttle and much cheaper than losing astronauts, never mind the damage to reputation.
This sort of thing should be a no brainer. I'm surprised actually to have not heard that NASA has worked out how to replace a tile while docked to the ISS?
I know that inevitably there will be governmental responses. We're all familiar with some of the responses of the US government after 9/11, and other/. posters have fears of similar or worse for the UK, but I hope that part if not most of the response is to prepare citizens of metropolitan areas with knowledge of what to do in such emergencies.
Yes, I know that you can't write down the top 11 things to do when the train you are on explodes, but there are simple things that can be done.
When there is an emergency, only those in the affected are should be trying to use communications systems... everyone else in the world should not be trying to call their friends and family, let those in London do the calling when they have the time and presence to do so.
Each business should have a plan for how to assist those workers that are 'stuck' at work when transportation is shut down.
Each local government should work with businesses to organize information broadcasting in the affected areas. Something like: if you are not sure what to do, stop on the street and watch the televisions in store windows that will (and they must) be showing evacuation plans, and local centers for those that are stuck etc. The more information that can be broadcast to the populace, the better the response can be orchestrated.
Cellular phone companies should work with public organizations to increase their ability to assist in the response to such emergency events.
I know that no one wants to see more bombs, but emergency response plans and actions are applicable for many events: fires, power outages, train wrecks, tsunami, earthquakes, almost anything that can disrupt the normal flow of things.
I'm not talking about just London, I mean Chicago, Moscow, Bejing, every metropolitan area. I've seen nuclear disaster planning and evacuation plans in the US, but the public is sadly never really informed or given any training in how to deal and react with such disasters.
In the 100,000 foot view of things, watching all the public milling about, slowly trying to get to a point of safety (wrt their own situation) and the emergency response teams trying to assist at the scene(s).. well, it all looks like a very uncoordinated group of ants trying to work around the mess. If our governments would simply begin preparing the public to react with more coordination wrt to the actions that must take place, everyone could be better off.
I'm sure that I'm missing some things out of my view of things, and I'm sure others will tell me about them, but the point is that we don't have to be this uncoordinated or unready to react to emergencies.
I know that some would argue that such planning only spreads panic or is more often ignored or laughed off as not serious or not needed, but in the middle of the mess, if only one person knows exactly what to do, it can save lives and make the emergency teams' response much more effective. If 25 or 100 people know exactly what to do, then it is so much better.
Perhaps I'm just optimistic? I just think that if you have to have the directions everytime you get on a plane, why not have some for normal living?
How would this help Londoners? Perhaps a train stuck underground has a normal emergency action plan? Shouldn't passengers know what it is? The reports of people standing around staring at the bus after it exploded? Shouldn't they already know that they should be running away from the mess as fast as they can? I know that people's morbid curiousity and shock contribute to that problem, but if people generally knew, they could react better, safer.
Its a thought anyway... and better preparations is more desireable than biometric ID cards and such.
I really don't believe that it would take that much incentive, perhaps a few $100,000 in a swiss bank waiting for someone to topple Longhorn and install corporate spyware inside Microsoft to publish their details to the world... Not that I have the bankroll for it, but there are a LOT of people in the world that have lots of free time and nothing particularly demanding to do with their skills....
I think it would be nice to see Longhorn just fail miserably. It would remove any grasp that the Redmond company could hope to keep hold of in the software market... If it takes 5 more years for the release of all the wonderful things promised, Linux and F/OSS will have already done it, done it better, and done it for very little money... why would anyone keep waiting for Longhorn?
Is anyone working on the Windows to Linux migration strategy? IBM? anyone?
I guess what I'm saying is that the/. community and those working on F/OSS software have a chance to absolutely topple Long(wait)horn and should be doing it... ?
Mr Gates has tons of quoted missives, but this is a doozy... And I quote "Longhorn, the next version of Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'."
If he actually intends to make this so, buying some blackhats to do the internal testing of Long(wait)horn just might be smart. Let them sit around and crack on longhorn now, so by the time the public gets a copy of it, it will have already been patched 43,000 times in the development cycle.
I hate to break the news, but the RIM/Blackberry has a patent on the arched keyboard it has. This prevents any other wireless handheld maker from using anything but the less than ergonomic square keyboard layout. Now, having patents can be good, and I'm not saying there isn't value in this one, but I do think that its time for patent holders to stop crying foul all the time. Mediation before litigation, and let the public (via/.-like metamoderation) decide what is fair and what isn't. After all, protecting innovation is one of the tennents of the patent system. The government is also meddling with the marketplace in order to foster competition and quality pricing.... but I think they stifle it more often then foster it. Time for public opinion to be more involved in the making of patent issuance and infringement mediation.
It seems to me that innovation has been lacking lately... there is not a lot to report for 'NextFest' as it were.... at least nothing commercially exciting.... not like black boxes in automobiles, or search engines that really do know what sites you want to see, or maybe RSS in Longhorn...
Geeez, with the amount of innovation being reported in the daily news on almost every major information provider's site, what was the point of NextFest? Its not like you can't turn on the television and find out about the latest in technology...
As I write, there is some story on television about the lineman who now has bionic arms... what were the NextFest promoters thinking?
In related news, Microsoft (Redmond, Wa.) announced that its Life 1.0 technology will be an integral part of the long awaited Longhorn Operating System software.
While the unnamed spokesperson could not explain if the Life 1.0 technology would work with Intel hardware, they did explain that its the intent of Microsoft to ensure that users can safely use the Internet for longer and longer periods of time, despite any life threatening illnesses the user might have.
Further announcements are expected regarding how Life 1.0 will be woven in to the accessability functions for Longhorn.
I like Rosco's application of/. like meta-moderation to an area where technology and litigation make the USPTO's job extremely huge. I do think that it should go a step further. As well as using meta-moderation to scope a larger base of information as to prior art and 'non-abviousness' it would also improve patent research (IMO).
Going a step further would be to use meta-moderation to support research and apply community standards on the patent system. Perhaps use of the meta-moderation system would require agreement to mediation rather than litigation in the event of confusion or patent infringement.
I suppose you could call them "meta patents" or "community patents" but whatever they are called, this would be the first step toward obtaining a standard patent which grants you the rights that patents do now. This preliminary stage would weed out all the little crap that ends up in courts.
Small businesses and individuals would then be allowed to work with their meta patents and any would be litigation is then relegated to mediation until there is a proper patent issued for the device/method/application etc.
Both meta moderation and meta mediation put much of the litigation issues in the hands of the community concerned with such patents rather than escalating them to high courts. This would decrease the risk of litigation and thus the risk of costs for small businesses and individuals.
Sure, I know there are many problems that this method would bring up like how does the system ensure that participants are citizens of the country issuing the meta patent, who pays for the system, what laws must be enacted to allow the USPTO to moderate such a system etc... Still, I think the idea of using community standards to issue patents before there is litigation or chance of it is a sound idea, and well worth being looked into.
It seems to me that while MS is finally matching up to its new competitors... this is as it should be, but IE7 is not even supported on all MS platforms/OSs... holy latency batman! It should be news that after everyone else had done something, finally MS decides to do something?
To me, if your supplier is 2-3 years behind its competition, you get a new supplier. The IE7 thing not supporting old OS versions, and the vaporware that is Avalanche just shows how far behind Redmond is....
What is the news here? That MS is behind, or that MS intentd to monopolize any market it can?
I'm simply amazed at how MS makes the news for doing things or claiming they will do things that have been done by others for years?
I don't mean to hate MS simply because, but this is a real reason to not like the Redmond engineers.... geez
The best answer is both simple and complex. As pointed out, better quality equipment would be very helpful, but alas, machines break, it is their nature.
When they break, people are stressed, and quite often they will be trying to get services that they have not or are not really willing to pay for.
Given that these seem universal truths when customer service is required, the best answer is a combination of all answers. Polite and helpful C/S agents who are both knowledgable and able to help customers no matter what the problem is. This ensures a respected and smooth experience.
Second, the technology is now available to make the machines smart enough to know what went wrong, when it went wrong, and what should be done to fix it. (remembering the Load PC Load Letter scene from office space?) They are putting black box type equipment in cars now, so it shouldn't be so difficult to put similar equipment in other machines. Obviously a machine like a desktop PC that is overly customized is difficult to do this right now, but copiers etc. are of fixed function and should marry well to such technology.
Additionally, there are nearly ubiquitous networks that are more than capable of carrying data to and from such equipment despite its location. I'm thinking of the 2-way paging networks. They have good in-building penetration and very large coverage footprints. While they only have about 6kbps bandwidth, this is more than enough for the copier in the break room to tell the service company that the toner is low, and that there have been three incidents of paper stuck in the mechanisms in the last 36 hours, indicating a need for the local tech rep to make a visit.
If its not your copier, perhaps it is refrigeration units that no one pays attention to until the office gets hot... again, very cheap embedded processors coupled to the 2-way paging network will be more than enough bandwidth to allow the service company to keep tabs on the status and health of the equipment that they maintain for you, and give them the ability to call you before it breaks rather than try hard to show up quickly after there is a break down.
Better customer service is about being smart, not simply about charging people for the work you do. Working smarter means making the technology work for you. Its not just about calling them before the equipment breaks (like the dentist will call you to remind you that your 6 month cleaning is due) but think of the value add that this gives your service organization. While you have a tech rep on the south side of the city for a service call, you can make the most of his time and your resources if you are able to schedule other non-failure work around travels that they have to make anyway, reducing wasted miles driven, reducing wasted man-hours, and generally making your service organization more efficient all around because you know what is coming, you know the health of the equipment that you are maintaining, and the relationship between expenditures and salaries etc. is a very real one, done in real time, and predictable over a longer period.
To say that information is power is good, but not accurate, to say that what you do with information is power is closer to the truth. Having the information is the first step, doing the right thing with it will turn your service organization into a world class success.
The answer to technology problems is often enough more technology and better use of it and the information that it can provide.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sort of surprised that it didn't happen earlier.
What would really be a surprise, pleasant one at that, is to see a F/OSS program actually plug the holes in Vista before it can sink?
Is the function of the Microsoft Linux Labs to make Windows software and platform compatible with Linux and F/OSS or to make them only compatible if Windows platform user's buy more licensed software from Microsoft? That is to say, is making F/OSS software more transparent to Microsoft managers, a manner to create interoperability, or to capture it in a licensed group of code?
With all the catching up that Microsoft is trying to do with other software groups lately, is the Linux Lab purposed for any reverse engineering reasons?
Do you have any directive to ensure that F/OSS code doesn't end up in Microsoft software? If not, who at Microsoft does?
The trouble, as I see it in what you say is that the nuances of human communication cannot be fully categorized or recorded. Today in training, the word 'gotcha' may indicate target lock for two team members working in a tank, tomorrow, or even in three hours, it could signify that one team member understands the other. Situational relevance of communication causes extreme difficulty for computers to immitate humans, or even play along. That is why experience and training cannot be substituted with a computer.
I have been part of teams working under pressure, and there is little that I can see of value in a clippy if the team is actually well trained and have worked together.
Human interaction changes dramatically under pressure to perform. Long sentences can become single words or syllables, yet full communication is achieved. An well trained team member begins to anticipate the action of other team members, in ways that clippy cannot do.
The parallel like processing of the human mind still outperforms that of any computer in small paradigms. Even in military situations, no computer application can apply all the relelvant information from other team members and information sources in a way that can replace or even assist in those decisions. If a team member forgets part of their job, it is usually not because s/he is under stress, it is because of lack of training or experience. Substituting computer assistance for training and experience is an EXTREMELY dangerous thing in my opinion, especially where human life is at risk.
Just my two cents.
Interesting that this round up of security tools is on an IBM website... well, sort of. Wonder if they will be made redundant by Vista?
Sorry, can't help but be happy to see people in the real world, doing valuable things, getting help from large companies, and doing them before and better than MS. The world of computing is changing and MS is already irrelevant... we just don't realize it fully yet.
Personally, I'll be checking out these four tools.
Why shouldn't ideas like this be awarded a patent? Well, because it is obvious. The triggers for what is exciting in this process is why commercials are so fscking loud on broadcast television. duh! Further, there are TV programs around the globe that do this, albeit without software. Using a computer to replicate what a human has done is not unique, nor unobvious. It is a blatently obvious application of the tools (computer & software). Sure, perhaps copyright should apply, but patent? NO, and the copyright should be limited in duration to that of say, 7 years or less. The same function can be done by looking at the parts of a game that are boring, and throwing them away, rather than looking at the exciting parts and keeping them. Duh... Yet another method for sports is to analyze the movement on the screen and decide what is exciting or not, thus the patent in question become frivilous through the fact that there are too many ways to do the same thing, and this patent will not guarantee protection of the inventors use of their invention. That is not to mention that a college intern can do the same thing and produce an identical product. Duh... no patent granted.
That we, as a community ( not just /., but the community of computer users worldwide) begin writing letters and emails to our elected representatives, and to the USPTO et al with regard to how we feel that such blantantly obvious things cannot and should not be patented. If the govt. doesn't understand this, perhaps 255,000 emails will explain it to them? Anything with enough prior art to establish that this is not an innovation, is not unique, nor is it unobvious may not be obvious to the USPTO. Does anyone know where we can write the USPTO to let them know?
Actually the inventor of the "have a nice day" smiley face did not make a dime for that. I saw a show on TLC or somewhere, and he's as broke as me or anyone else. He made nothing for that, which makes him a supporter of sorts for F/OSS!
Its more likely that it is about resources. MS needs time to catch Google, time they don't have, but lawyers they do. While trying to catch up to Google, anything MS can do to hurt Google's bottom line helps MS. Anything they can do now to arm themselves for patent/copyright infringement cases against Google in the future will help MS. This is a huge chess game, and MS has their fingers on ALL the pieces. Even if it is dismissed as a nuisance suit against Google, chances are that it will hurt Google in some areas, and that is all that MS needs to do while they are catching up. Remember, if MS can't buy a competitor (sometimes even if they can) then their business strategy is to ruin that competitor.
but it seems that many here are mistaking improvement for innovation. Innovation is doing that which has not been done, nor was expected via the conduits of common sense.
... well, that is what I want. I'm not holding my breath.
Innovation in computing will take some doing. There are plenty of companies that are trying to find and accept new business models and methods, trying to adapt to new threats, both malicious and competition based, but there is no innovation per se'. Unless you want to count multicore processors, low voltage processors, battery and power technologies that are leaps and bounds above previous. These are arguably derivitive works, but they build cornerstones for true innovation.
Innovation in computing, by definition, must change how we use them in some way. The spreadsheet was an innovation. The DOS was an innovation. GUI OS was an innovation. What do we need now?
We need more human like interaction with computers. Grandma doesn't need to know what icon to click if the computer asks her what she wants to do? Little sheila doesn't have to know the innards of Google if all she has to do is ask what is the three main properties of an isotope?
There is an entire new (as yet unexplored) world of computing that is a huge layer between the user and the actual workings of a computer. All the recent 'innovations' in computing and technology bring us that little bit closer to the world of Star Trek computers. The people that help bridge what we have today over to what Star Trek and other futuristic folks have promised are the people that will bring innovation.
The computer is a tool. We use it in different ways, but it is a tool. It really doesn't matter what OS you use, it is still a tool. I envision robots interacting with humans, and in the background use the computer/Internet to help or assist humans. How many times have you asked somebody who that movie actor was? or what is the word that means so and so? or asked people around you what is a word that means blah blah blah? We are born, and grow up, and by accident of birth, we learn and experience what it is that makes us much of what we are (so psychiatrists say) but with the computer and Internet, that can change. When you can ask your robot or PDA what is the identity of the bird that I just heard, then you have innovation. When you can be shopping and ask your robot or pda if this camelback couch is a good deal or not, that is innovation.
When you can type out a shopping list for the grocery store, and a kid shows up when you get home with the items you wanted... that is innovation.
The point is that technology isn't innovation. Innovation is how we use the technology. You can surf progressively faster and faster, but if you continue to surf the same way, there is no innovation.
Perhaps some will argue with me (and TFA is unavailable) but innovation is not new batteries or a different design of laptop. Innovation is how we use the technology and information (that wants to be free by the way).
Innovation is how software makes the information more useful. Right now we still pay lawyers to do patent searches... computers should tell us if there is prior art or patents without paying a lawyer. Information is just information. Sure there are those that want you to pay for it, but any free information should be available in ways that is just not possible now... that is innovation. When your child can ask the computer how many bones are in the human hand, and be shown a picture of them on the 'face' of their personal robot, that is innovation.
Information doesn't want to just be free, it wants to be freely integrated into all of our lives. When there is even just one place in a rural 3rd world country where information like this is available, it doesn't take much to imagine that even the uneducated can ask for help finding a new way to solve a problem and finding how it was solved in all of history in other places. Say a third world company wants to build cars... and they ask the computer for cross reference of their design against all of the worlds minimum requirements for safety? If they got the answer, that is innovation.
Great, that is just what the pr0n industry needs, a screen where the viewer can see things poking out from the screen!! NOT
Disclaimer: IANAL and this is not meant as a troll
But with the arrest of a wardriver in Florida, now the prosecution of those who are party to, or induce copyright infringement, not to mention the *AA's seemingly bottomless pocket to pay copyright lawyers and investigators. How long will it be before governments are actively regulating use of the Internet and adjudicating on the legality of how we use any part of it?
I can't see how any of these violations actually fell outside of standard laws and practices, but because they were done using the Internet, it gives a foothold for governments and worse (good intentioned polititians) to intervene in the Internet world and commerce on behalf of the happless millions that don't know how to use an anti-virus program or not to open suspect emails.
Has anyone found anything (news reports, comment, blogs etc.) that gives serious and credible thought or research into this and its likely outcome, with relevant examples of prior legal and political activities relating to similar situations?
I have tried to find relevant information, but can't seem to find it. Just looking for some hints / help in getting more information.
Didn't the Pentium have this problem too?
:-)
3 - 2 = 1.99999999999
sounds like something MS windows can deal with?
Its time that NASA started investing in more robots. I can see EVA robots doing these checks on all spacecraft in the future, no matter what country the spacecraft has launched from. It only makes sense. I'm sure that such robots can be much more robust and cost effective than a human EVA to check heat shield tiles and other items critical to a safe landing, and high tech scanners, such as are used to check for stress cracks in commercial airliners could be the basis for such robots. Geez, if you spend $500k maybe we could save several hundred million.
A cousin to the inspector robot could also replace the tile when it is sent up on an unmanned spacecraft. Its not like the logistics of this kind of problem aren't worked out everyday around the globe. Many of the people and businesses in Florida et al have just gone through the process. Yes, you need a part, but can't buy it or steal it from anywhere, so you have to wait for the next shipment etc. Just make sure the astronauts pack a few extra meals. Sure, the cost of shipping that extra part could be hundred thousand dollars or more, but that is cheaper than losing a shuttle and much cheaper than losing astronauts, never mind the damage to reputation.
This sort of thing should be a no brainer. I'm surprised actually to have not heard that NASA has worked out how to replace a tile while docked to the ISS?
But then maybe I'm just missing out on something.
I know that inevitably there will be governmental responses. We're all familiar with some of the responses of the US government after 9/11, and other /. posters have fears of similar or worse for the UK, but I hope that part if not most of the response is to prepare citizens of metropolitan areas with knowledge of what to do in such emergencies.
Yes, I know that you can't write down the top 11 things to do when the train you are on explodes, but there are simple things that can be done.
When there is an emergency, only those in the affected are should be trying to use communications systems... everyone else in the world should not be trying to call their friends and family, let those in London do the calling when they have the time and presence to do so.
Each business should have a plan for how to assist those workers that are 'stuck' at work when transportation is shut down.
Each local government should work with businesses to organize information broadcasting in the affected areas. Something like: if you are not sure what to do, stop on the street and watch the televisions in store windows that will (and they must) be showing evacuation plans, and local centers for those that are stuck etc. The more information that can be broadcast to the populace, the better the response can be orchestrated.
Cellular phone companies should work with public organizations to increase their ability to assist in the response to such emergency events.
I know that no one wants to see more bombs, but emergency response plans and actions are applicable for many events: fires, power outages, train wrecks, tsunami, earthquakes, almost anything that can disrupt the normal flow of things.
I'm not talking about just London, I mean Chicago, Moscow, Bejing, every metropolitan area. I've seen nuclear disaster planning and evacuation plans in the US, but the public is sadly never really informed or given any training in how to deal and react with such disasters.
In the 100,000 foot view of things, watching all the public milling about, slowly trying to get to a point of safety (wrt their own situation) and the emergency response teams trying to assist at the scene(s).. well, it all looks like a very uncoordinated group of ants trying to work around the mess. If our governments would simply begin preparing the public to react with more coordination wrt to the actions that must take place, everyone could be better off.
I'm sure that I'm missing some things out of my view of things, and I'm sure others will tell me about them, but the point is that we don't have to be this uncoordinated or unready to react to emergencies.
I know that some would argue that such planning only spreads panic or is more often ignored or laughed off as not serious or not needed, but in the middle of the mess, if only one person knows exactly what to do, it can save lives and make the emergency teams' response much more effective. If 25 or 100 people know exactly what to do, then it is so much better.
Perhaps I'm just optimistic? I just think that if you have to have the directions everytime you get on a plane, why not have some for normal living?
How would this help Londoners? Perhaps a train stuck underground has a normal emergency action plan? Shouldn't passengers know what it is? The reports of people standing around staring at the bus after it exploded? Shouldn't they already know that they should be running away from the mess as fast as they can? I know that people's morbid curiousity and shock contribute to that problem, but if people generally knew, they could react better, safer.
Its a thought anyway... and better preparations is more desireable than biometric ID cards and such.
Big Bad Software Corp?
/. community and those working on F/OSS software have a chance to absolutely topple Long(wait)horn and should be doing it... ?
I really don't believe that it would take that much incentive, perhaps a few $100,000 in a swiss bank waiting for someone to topple Longhorn and install corporate spyware inside Microsoft to publish their details to the world... Not that I have the bankroll for it, but there are a LOT of people in the world that have lots of free time and nothing particularly demanding to do with their skills....
I think it would be nice to see Longhorn just fail miserably. It would remove any grasp that the Redmond company could hope to keep hold of in the software market... If it takes 5 more years for the release of all the wonderful things promised, Linux and F/OSS will have already done it, done it better, and done it for very little money... why would anyone keep waiting for Longhorn?
Is anyone working on the Windows to Linux migration strategy? IBM? anyone?
I guess what I'm saying is that the
Mr Gates has tons of quoted missives, but this is a doozy... And I quote "Longhorn, the next version of Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'." If he actually intends to make this so, buying some blackhats to do the internal testing of Long(wait)horn just might be smart. Let them sit around and crack on longhorn now, so by the time the public gets a copy of it, it will have already been patched 43,000 times in the development cycle.
I hate to break the news, but the RIM/Blackberry has a patent on the arched keyboard it has. This prevents any other wireless handheld maker from using anything but the less than ergonomic square keyboard layout. Now, having patents can be good, and I'm not saying there isn't value in this one, but I do think that its time for patent holders to stop crying foul all the time. Mediation before litigation, and let the public (via /.-like metamoderation) decide what is fair and what isn't. After all, protecting innovation is one of the tennents of the patent system. The government is also meddling with the marketplace in order to foster competition and quality pricing.... but I think they stifle it more often then foster it. Time for public opinion to be more involved in the making of patent issuance and infringement mediation.
It seems to me that innovation has been lacking lately... there is not a lot to report for 'NextFest' as it were.... at least nothing commercially exciting .... not like black boxes in automobiles, or search engines that really do know what sites you want to see, or maybe RSS in Longhorn...
Geeez, with the amount of innovation being reported in the daily news on almost every major information provider's site, what was the point of NextFest? Its not like you can't turn on the television and find out about the latest in technology...
As I write, there is some story on television about the lineman who now has bionic arms... what were the NextFest promoters thinking?
In related news, Microsoft (Redmond, Wa.) announced that its Life 1.0 technology will be an integral part of the long awaited Longhorn Operating System software.
While the unnamed spokesperson could not explain if the Life 1.0 technology would work with Intel hardware, they did explain that its the intent of Microsoft to ensure that users can safely use the Internet for longer and longer periods of time, despite any life threatening illnesses the user might have.
Further announcements are expected regarding how Life 1.0 will be woven in to the accessability functions for Longhorn.
I like Rosco's application of /. like meta-moderation to an area where technology and litigation make the USPTO's job extremely huge.
I do think that it should go a step further. As well as using meta-moderation to scope a larger base of information as to prior art and 'non-abviousness' it would also improve patent research (IMO).
Going a step further would be to use meta-moderation to support research and apply community standards on the patent system. Perhaps use of the meta-moderation system would require agreement to mediation rather than litigation in the event of confusion or patent infringement.
I suppose you could call them "meta patents" or "community patents" but whatever they are called, this would be the first step toward obtaining a standard patent which grants you the rights that patents do now. This preliminary stage would weed out all the little crap that ends up in courts.
Small businesses and individuals would then be allowed to work with their meta patents and any would be litigation is then relegated to mediation until there is a proper patent issued for the device/method/application etc.
Both meta moderation and meta mediation put much of the litigation issues in the hands of the community concerned with such patents rather than escalating them to high courts. This would decrease the risk of litigation and thus the risk of costs for small businesses and individuals.
Sure, I know there are many problems that this method would bring up like how does the system ensure that participants are citizens of the country issuing the meta patent, who pays for the system, what laws must be enacted to allow the USPTO to moderate such a system etc... Still, I think the idea of using community standards to issue patents before there is litigation or chance of it is a sound idea, and well worth being looked into.
Just my tuppence worth....
It seems to me that while MS is finally matching up to its new competitors... this is as it should be, but IE7 is not even supported on all MS platforms/OSs... holy latency batman! It should be news that after everyone else had done something, finally MS decides to do something?
To me, if your supplier is 2-3 years behind its competition, you get a new supplier. The IE7 thing not supporting old OS versions, and the vaporware that is Avalanche just shows how far behind Redmond is....
What is the news here? That MS is behind, or that MS intentd to monopolize any market it can?
I'm simply amazed at how MS makes the news for doing things or claiming they will do things that have been done by others for years?
I don't mean to hate MS simply because, but this is a real reason to not like the Redmond engineers.... geez
The best answer is both simple and complex. As pointed out, better quality equipment would be very helpful, but alas, machines break, it is their nature.
When they break, people are stressed, and quite often they will be trying to get services that they have not or are not really willing to pay for.
Given that these seem universal truths when customer service is required, the best answer is a combination of all answers. Polite and helpful C/S agents who are both knowledgable and able to help customers no matter what the problem is. This ensures a respected and smooth experience.
Second, the technology is now available to make the machines smart enough to know what went wrong, when it went wrong, and what should be done to fix it. (remembering the Load PC Load Letter scene from office space?) They are putting black box type equipment in cars now, so it shouldn't be so difficult to put similar equipment in other machines. Obviously a machine like a desktop PC that is overly customized is difficult to do this right now, but copiers etc. are of fixed function and should marry well to such technology.
Additionally, there are nearly ubiquitous networks that are more than capable of carrying data to and from such equipment despite its location. I'm thinking of the 2-way paging networks. They have good in-building penetration and very large coverage footprints. While they only have about 6kbps bandwidth, this is more than enough for the copier in the break room to tell the service company that the toner is low, and that there have been three incidents of paper stuck in the mechanisms in the last 36 hours, indicating a need for the local tech rep to make a visit.
If its not your copier, perhaps it is refrigeration units that no one pays attention to until the office gets hot... again, very cheap embedded processors coupled to the 2-way paging network will be more than enough bandwidth to allow the service company to keep tabs on the status and health of the equipment that they maintain for you, and give them the ability to call you before it breaks rather than try hard to show up quickly after there is a break down.
Better customer service is about being smart, not simply about charging people for the work you do. Working smarter means making the technology work for you. Its not just about calling them before the equipment breaks (like the dentist will call you to remind you that your 6 month cleaning is due) but think of the value add that this gives your service organization. While you have a tech rep on the south side of the city for a service call, you can make the most of his time and your resources if you are able to schedule other non-failure work around travels that they have to make anyway, reducing wasted miles driven, reducing wasted man-hours, and generally making your service organization more efficient all around because you know what is coming, you know the health of the equipment that you are maintaining, and the relationship between expenditures and salaries etc. is a very real one, done in real time, and predictable over a longer period.
To say that information is power is good, but not accurate, to say that what you do with information is power is closer to the truth. Having the information is the first step, doing the right thing with it will turn your service organization into a world class success.
The answer to technology problems is often enough more technology and better use of it and the information that it can provide.
At least that is my opinion.
that the west really had nothing to worry about after all during the cold war?
Are any of these supercomputers rated for testing BT bandwidth limits.... or making a website /. proof?