Is this a smart move, considering that MS is having to rip out its player from the EU version of Windows?
Maybe I'm just talking out of my @ss, but now would be the time for compeititors to make their move to start taking market share from MS that belonged to Ms by default via the free player?
Just a thought. I wonder how many more companies will make a play for that market share?
is going down hill because this guy has this amount of time to waste? He definitely has too much time on his hands... I would suggest a good hobby, such as reading/.?
The reason that DDT as used in pesticides was made illegal in the US and other places is because it does not decay, and produces appreciably reduced fertility in the males of many species, not just humans.
The projections of 15-20 years ago about the knock-on effects of DDT usage were very scary, almost to the point that we should be amazed that there is a relatively balanced population in North America at this point.
OTOH, for geeks, that means that soon enough there should be close to a 2:1 ratio of women to men... good news?
I agree with jnelson4765, new buids would be well served to be tested on a great many machines with a wide variety of hardware setups.
Who should map the hardware testing platforms? I don't know, but I do know that if the new kernel builds are tested for a generic group of hardware and released, then other testers report on their tests using hardware X, you would end up with a relatively quick listing of a new build against many variants of hardware. Published correctly, it would allow people to search for problems regarding the new build and any particular hardware that they might be using.
That should allow reasonable release schedules and capture errors with older/arcane/little-used hardware. I think that would be quite acceptable.
As for ARM and other platforms that are not exactly mainstream, they could also be in the second round of testing. If an ARM supplier wanted to be certified in the early build testing, they could support that with hardware and other resources, thus pushing certification earlier for their hardware. Even MB or HD manufacturers can support the testing with their hardware for early certification, so that it is a community effort rather than just that if a small group of testers.
All together, I can see the process as quite workable.
I can see it now, the F/OSSey awards, sponsored by Cheetos and Jolt cola.... Broadcast live on public access television and bittorrent (of course) with a counter in the lower right corner that counts the number of not-paid-for downloads since the broadcast started..... Hooray
This is amazing for several reasons. First, I think I'd get fired for letting software (that may or may not be working correctly) do a job that is so important and not have any humans checking the work.
Second, AI in general has been smoke and mirrors from the start, in all of its generalized forms. Its amazing that there is little to show for this particular sci/tech branch of engineering after so many years and attempts.
Currently, there are tons of people investigating how the human (and animal) brains work to better understand 'intelligence' in order to create a better AI. Everyday, if not on/., on other news lists, there are little news stories of some observation or breakthrough in that area.
So the answer is that yes, AI is coming along, and specifically computer vision. You can google it yourself. From the DARPA Grand Challenge to NASA and many other ventures, computer vision is being improved. The more improvement there is for computer vision, the better the algorithms can get for recognizing protien smears on a picture.
I think that you will find there are people who are not only using visual scanning, but compiling this with IR and other types of scanning to better analyze the material.
Computer based vision analysis is everywhere around you. The airline industry uses robotic scanners to look for structural defects in planes by scanning every mm of the surface in several ways. This is done mostly by computers.
Mining and geologic communities are putting robots with computer vision and scanning software to work to find thing that is just impossible by the human eye. Say a robotic helicopter flying over a mountainous area scanning for fire prone areas using IR, sonic and other types of scanning.
The oil industry has been using image analysis for years to find better oil sources in the earth.
This type of stuff is all around us. Finding F/OSS sources of it is perhaps just a matter of scanning for it. Better yet, when you find some, put out some payola to support their efforts. There are open source computer vision projects. Intel has made efforts to support this among others.
Electronics manufacturing is using it as well. I think that if you can focus some funds toward the right group, they will have the tools to develop the specific types of image analysis that you require for your industry.
I imagine that scanning protien smears is not much more difficult than finding micrometer sized fractures in the skin of an airplane, or finding hard to see stars using amature telescopes and computer driven camera technology.
that this type of attack has most probably been going on for years, without being detected.
More sophisticated worms and trojans will happen. Think of a virus that stealthily hides on computers, moving across the network till it finds itself on a machine in domain xyz.com. Once there it promulgates quietly, doing no damage, until one of its copies finds files of the variety xxxxx.xls. Then slowly searching those files, sending bits of it back to a server on the internet disguised as mail from the user of that machine.
It gets even scarier. Imagine that virus looking for your company's cvs server?
The only thing that I can think of to combat it is to ensure that all applications are checked before being run, and that they have certification by company security infrastructure. This might prevent joe bloggs from working at home and bringing the trojan to work with him.
It can be done if the program is executed by the user without verification of certification etc.
To totally lock down your network will become very difficult in the future. Commercial antivirus vendors will have to work very closely with OS groups to actually create a secure computing environment.... and user's will not like the efforts they have to go through to participate in that secure environment.
The current efforts by software vendors and groups will not even come close to stopping such spyware programs.
Well, that's how I see it anyway... who knows for sure.
To others it means life evolves and all religion dies
What? You mean that religion is still alive? I thought we killed that with priests sexual behaviors & coverups, gay marriages, and general rememberances of holy wars?
The trouble with religion is that it mandates that you must justify everything to fit your previously held views and faith rather than explore and make up your own mind when presented with another possible take on the universe.
Its a shame, or perhaps just sham, that religion has anything to do with it. It is space exploration, no more startling than when Columbus went looking for tea bags by heading for Florida.
For some reason people think that life on other planets means something religious? It means that there is life on other planets. If your faith has no room for an omniscent god to have created life on some planet that you aren't part of, I pity you.
Perhaps it would be better if we ALL simply sat down and decided that these old religious things we carry around are not right, and a new view is in order?
OMG! If this analysis was done by *THE* Al CAIDA group, then you know it has to be right. err, I mean, those guys know lots about viruses and terrorism and worms and dirt floors and stuff...
I have to disagree with this. The Internet, as it was invented, intended, and as it has been adopted... none of these things ever included regulation. All efforts are being, and have been made to work around network problems.
The fact that the Internet exists doesn't translate to a need for the government or anyone else to guarantee that it operates without hiccups. I tire very easily of those that take the stance that the Internet and services based on the Internet should work flawlessly, and if needed, the network should be regulated to ensure that they do.
This kind of thinking is socialist in nature, and the Internet (as it is now defined) is totally antihtesis to this notion.
There is no current methodology for regulating a global phenomenon. No single government, despite their aspirations, can achieve regulation of a global network. Spam comes from every corner of the globe, and like fire ants, when you think you have eliminated it, it will show up from some other spot you have no control over.
Anonymity, or stealth on the Internet is part and parcel of what it is. Tracing someone's work over the Internet necessarily should be difficult. That people have made efforts to make it even more difficult is nothing more than living in the spirit of free flow of information without retribution.
While some of you might feel that this is not needed, there are disidents in some countries that really would like to have this kind of anonymity. Who are we to deny it to them on the basis of our view of the world?
Liberty and freedom only happens when you truly are free to say and do as you please (so long as you don't violate anyone else's freedom) and publishing what you think and feel is not against that. There are actual valid reasons for ultra privacy.
To say that netizens or Internet users should be responsible is to intimate that there is a set of regulations that they should abide by that is significant and pertains only to the Internet.
There are laws and social norms of decency that all should abide by whether they are on the Internet or in the local convenience store.
Sure, there will be those that abuse any leniencey, but there always is, no matter what the law or social morality says. Those that think there should be more regulation on the Internet might be better off staying off of the Internet... go get an AOL subscription... or something like that.
I remember seeing some science show about this rover and the exhaustive efforts that they went through to design and test the wheels in various conditions.
Perhaps I'm simplifying it, but for all the money the spent on the wheels, they could have designed them to have inflatable monster-mudder style blades, like tractor tires have, to pop out of the surface when needed, such as has been the case recently????
(CSIRO) Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization....
Looks like more IP / Copyright litigation to me. WLAN has too many standards, too many cooks, too many IP holders to ever really get anywhere without a fight.
I'm interested to see how this works out. A patent is there to protect the inventor and let them make some money... now the big corps (it seems) don't want to play by those rules because it is costing them money?
I don't know anymore... I think the problem would be mitigated much easier if all the lawyers just dropped out of sight, or dead, whichever comes first.
I think that any bill or law like this has all the teeth that the law against anal intercourse does in Texas. Its only used to prosecute those that the government and/or its most ardent lobbyists want to prosecute, at which point legal action is rammed through (so to speak) in a way that makes it very difficult for anyone to defend themselves should they be the target of this type of law.
Any law that is practically unenforcable is only ever enacted in order to have it handy like a law against rats being in your garage, so its like a big baseball bat for when you think you see a rat in the corner of the garage.
To me, this signifies that the lawmakers of Washington state, and their lobbyists are guilty of one of two things:
Complete ignorance and ineptitude regarding the Internet and how it actually works
- or - Collusion with certain parties in order to help those that they want to help and to hammer those they don't...
Seeing as Redmond is in Washington state (duh) I can only image that the reason for this is to further the plans of Microsoft.
One more nail in the coffin of the old way of doing things. Podcasts and Internet broadcasting are the beginnings of a revolution of sorts. Digital media distribution *MUST* not be dictated by those that made their money on physical distribution until and unless they can show they know what they are doing. It is high time that digital content was distributed digitally in the way that the Internet was designed to distribute it.
Yeah, I know, sounds like a troll-ish. Trouble is that there seems to be no place in particular to award such digital content distributors... there is no Internet Emmy's or Tony's.... maybe there should be?
I don't care whether the first shows are about pigs or making toothpicks as long as there are shows... "build it and they will come"
Its just time for people to use the Internet as it was intended, to use it for freedom of information and to distribute information, free of the chains of old style distribution methods and business models.
It about time.... about time that the RIAA and MPAA found out about this new thing called the Internet and what it can do for the world! Any startup is welcome in my mind, "build it and they will come"
Yeah, I know that public/local access cable programs never really caught on, but I think that with a little effort, the Internet will catch on as a mainstream distribution medium. Not just for captain cable and aunt millie with her advice for growing roses, but for mainstream content, both video and music, news, weather, everything....
Any effort, IMHO, is appreciated and applauded. Its time we set up some InternEmmy awards????
Personally, this makes me wonder why I would ever give anyone my SSN, unless they can prove they will live up to their federally mandated responsibilities.
This just shows that most companies and governments cannot do so.
trying to keep the tide from the beach.... Every attempt at regulating the Internet or its use will fail. The only successful prosecutions are when it is proven that the user's use of the Internet violated another law that has nothing to do with the Internet. Of course this will fail, they have little if any power to enforce this law, and this is probably something related to other, unrelated, political interests anyway.
I wish the world would wake up and start openly and vociferously laughing at public figures that believe they can enact laws to stop people from expressing themselves or trying every means possible to take advantage of other simply by making a law that says its illegal to do so. If there is no teeth in the law, then it is just a waste of taxpayer's money, and the governments time and resources.
Geez Beaver, do you really think you're mom will find out?
Lunacy, that's what it is. I cannot believe that anyone would think it is possible to regulate the Internet. Some countries may be able to stop access to sites deemed 'not good' but in the end, all they are doing is denying access to information... hmmm lets see, what happened the last time that people thought burning books was a good idea?
As for making it illegal, every country (almost) already has laws against fraud and theft, or anything else that spam and spyware can do. Why not just enforce those laws?
The reason? I will suggest it is because government find themselves impotent to do anything about something they have no clue how it works, and they want to find a way to garner votes in the next election... so it looks good if they seem to be doing something about the latest Internet threat....
Like has already been said, the real threat to user's information is themselves. Most user's gladly give away their information without a second thought because they trust anyone that has a website, OMG, they have a website on the Internet, they must be legitimate.....
There is no law, or even book of laws that will protect a fool or foolish people. A fool and his (or her) personal information, like their money, are soon parted.
Lets all just enforce the laws that are already in effect. Spyware, that gives the author or originator information required to steal from a user without their consent is illegal already, it is called theft, scam artistry, and other names. Whether the scam artist used the Internet or e-mail matters not, they are guilty of crimes.
These 'new internet laws' are only evidence that our governments are both impotent to do anything and clueless as to how to do so.
Its time we all started voting smarter?
Hey, no comments on how I voted... my preferences have changed 6 times since 911.
Yes, I do consider IBM to be a big vendor, who is making contributions, and knows how to do so. I didn't mention them... wasn't thorough enough. I think that all big vendors working with an ally that can't necessarily be easily bought out or run out of business will be how they take back market share from Microsoft.
My prediction is small enterprise inroads while trying to solidify a home/SMB user base. In the background, I think we will see Microsoft opponents working to establish F/OSS (supported by big vendors or not) working to make inroads on enterprise class network management, storage management, and other things that Microsoft is working to keep or get hold of.
When F/OSS (whether supported by big vendors or not) starts to offer complete (though possibly disparately sourced) solutions for SMB and enterprise level customers, then the non-Microsoft big vendors will have a chance to take back market share in those domains.
Reliability and 24/7 support is something that F/OSS doesn't yet offer. Through big iron vendors, this might become reality. And so there is room for more than just RH enterprise linux. The other players have yet to establish their expertise (F/OSS-wise) in that domain. As they do, we will see the fabric of the software industry change and morph yet more.
Example: Free Solaris, but getting the value adds that enterprises need will cost some $$. In this business model, they can compete head-on with Microsoft but compatability is the key to any successes in doing so. When compatability with Microsoft products is effectively eliminated as a reason to buy more Microsoft products, the entire industry, and yes the end user, will benefit greatly. I see this as an inevitable redistribution or balance of power so to speak.
We already see big vendors modifying their business models and marketing. More of this will follow. Now that everyone has heard of Linux and Firefox etc. it will be those that understand and support this 'new stuff' that have marketing edge, while Microsoft (arguably) will have to defend against this new and wonderful software stuff. The average user doesn't really know, and the average business guy (not well informed IT staff) doesn't know how to calculate ROI, or true cost of ownership for any OS, nevermind compare one to another.
So the game begins, and it is about money. Someone commented that I had forgotten that, but not true. The real question is where to create revenue streams when your competition is working for free, and can't really be bought? The old business models are not going to work so well from now on. Sure, there are business values that will still work, like building a reputation on being reliable, trustworthy, have products well worth their cost, and provide superb support. Its difficult to find a business model in the changing fabric of the software industry right now, and I see the big iron vendors working to position themselves to take advantage of any revenue stream that they can, especially when it involves taking from Microsoft. (even if it looks like colusion to start with)
Innovation is the one thing that will always garner revenue. The only truly innovative thing that has happened recently is the trend in the software industry to take F/OSS seriously. I think that we will see the big iron vendors finding ways to innovate, to reinvent themsleves so to speak. This will create revenue streams that do not compete head-on with Microsoft, and will bolster their positions in the industry as well.
It is without doubt a very coplex situation and equation. There are plenty of people (myself included) that will try to tell you where things are heading. The one thing that I know for certain is this: IBM, Sun et al could not have found a better partner than F/OSS in fighting Microsoft's grip on the software industry. Eventually people that know NAS, SAN, backup, data center architecture etc. will become involved with F/OSS and by partnering with the big iron vendors, they will find revenue
What if some of these ideas are part correct? If Sun is looking to cooperate on single sign-on, or other issues of compatability, as well as cozy up to OSS and standards, that would put Sun in between two vitreous opponents. Its always been helpful to me to try to see what this behavior would benefit the actor.
By being compatible with Windows, Sun keeps vitality in the enterprise domain. By working with F/OSS they keep vitality in the home pc domain. Now, vitality in this case may mean only survivability. None the less, it keeps Sun active on two fronts in the software wars.
If both Sun and Microsoft develop single sign-on and other compatability efforts, surely the F/OSS world will gain from this?
If Sun is attacking Microsoft's grip on the software industry by playing both sides against the middle, they stand to gain in the aftermath of any battle over any facet of software in the general marketplace. Someone has to end up making money from all this F/OSS effort. RedHat is not doing too badly, and there seems to be room for at least one more *nix player in the Enterprise domain.
This of course might be totally wrong, but I can see big iron vendors spending much more time working with F/OSS and at the same time, not starting any new battles head-on with Microsoft.
There is a certain danger to ignoring the/.-ers of the world. I think that highend graphics might have been much slower in coming along if it hadn't been for gamers and tech-heads. There are other examples where leading edge or application specific adaptations became standard issue and were lead by the early adaptors. Perhaps this lesson hasn't eluded some of the industry's big players? This Linux thing and the 'free' and OSS might just not be going away any time soon?
SCO seems to have made itself irrelevant by playing things the old school way. It didn't go well for them. Perhaps this is also written on the board room walls at Sun? Billion dollar lawsuits are not very popular these days.
Whatever the outcome, it looks to me like F/OSS is having a positive effect on the software industry as a whole, and we can now see very big vendors trying to find a place in the new marketplace of the software industry.
The one thing that I think will make a *nix distribution stable enough for the Enterprise market is the backing / support of a very big vendor that already knows how to make enterprise class software and computing systems. There is still room for a Solaris in the enterprise, and if 10 installed a bit better with more support for my hardware, I'd be running it at home.
I personally would like to see Sun make a better offering in the free OS realm. Solaris is a very stable OS, despite any objections that some might have. I'd definitely test anything that Sun supports or assists with.
If they can work out the wrinkles with Microsoft, and keep things stable for a bit, it seems possible that Sun could be working to pull off the theft of a bigger marketshare from Microsoft.
There are a couple of very simple lessons to be learned about DOS that should be heard by everyone (I think):
LESSON: Easier may not be better, but more people buy it. Windows was easier for grandma to use than command line interfaces, and thus made DOS obsolete.
LESSON: A product that is targeted to hardware and to a userbase will get market share. DOS was a derivitave work aimed at the microcomputer of the day. This allowed the average company or person to buy that hardware and use it effectively. Its target users were anyone that wanted stand alone computing resources, free of mainframes.
LESSON: Control is not the answer, simplicity is. Because DOS could be installed by anyone on almost any compatible machine, buying it made sense, and money was spent for the version of DOS that had the features required for the job. For this very reason, Microsoft has garnered a long list of detractors.
For the *nix world, what should be learned is that if you want to do something right, make it simple and easy to use by anyone. Make it portable: that is to say, yourLinux should work on many or any hardware platform that would be used by your target userbase. If you are targeting people who want to build their HTPC then by all means, make your own version of Linux if you find benefit to this, otherwise, use some other stable distribution and package it with the software you need to give the end user a sleek and easy installation and maintenance of their HTPC system. If you feel the need to innovate, remember that simple is when you take a good idea and make it usable on any *nix distro, and compatible with other OSs. It is the ease of use that creates marketshare.
While *nix developers struggle with competing with entrenched software vendors, it is time to remember that to beat them you have to be better, not simply a good-enough alternative if you want to get grandma and aunt velda using your code.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this a smart move, considering that MS is having to rip out its player from the EU version of Windows?
Maybe I'm just talking out of my @ss, but now would be the time for compeititors to make their move to start taking market share from MS that belonged to Ms by default via the free player?
Just a thought. I wonder how many more companies will make a play for that market share?
is going down hill because this guy has this amount of time to waste? He definitely has too much time on his hands... I would suggest a good hobby, such as reading /.?
The reason that DDT as used in pesticides was made illegal in the US and other places is because it does not decay, and produces appreciably reduced fertility in the males of many species, not just humans.
The projections of 15-20 years ago about the knock-on effects of DDT usage were very scary, almost to the point that we should be amazed that there is a relatively balanced population in North America at this point.
OTOH, for geeks, that means that soon enough there should be close to a 2:1 ratio of women to men... good news?
I agree with jnelson4765, new buids would be well served to be tested on a great many machines with a wide variety of hardware setups.
Who should map the hardware testing platforms? I don't know, but I do know that if the new kernel builds are tested for a generic group of hardware and released, then other testers report on their tests using hardware X, you would end up with a relatively quick listing of a new build against many variants of hardware. Published correctly, it would allow people to search for problems regarding the new build and any particular hardware that they might be using.
That should allow reasonable release schedules and capture errors with older/arcane/little-used hardware. I think that would be quite acceptable.
As for ARM and other platforms that are not exactly mainstream, they could also be in the second round of testing. If an ARM supplier wanted to be certified in the early build testing, they could support that with hardware and other resources, thus pushing certification earlier for their hardware. Even MB or HD manufacturers can support the testing with their hardware for early certification, so that it is a community effort rather than just that if a small group of testers.
All together, I can see the process as quite workable.
I can see it now, the F/OSSey awards, sponsored by Cheetos and Jolt cola.... Broadcast live on public access television and bittorrent (of course) with a counter in the lower right corner that counts the number of not-paid-for downloads since the broadcast started..... Hooray
This is amazing for several reasons. First, I think I'd get fired for letting software (that may or may not be working correctly) do a job that is so important and not have any humans checking the work.
/., on other news lists, there are little news stories of some observation or breakthrough in that area.
Second, AI in general has been smoke and mirrors from the start, in all of its generalized forms. Its amazing that there is little to show for this particular sci/tech branch of engineering after so many years and attempts.
Currently, there are tons of people investigating how the human (and animal) brains work to better understand 'intelligence' in order to create a better AI. Everyday, if not on
So the answer is that yes, AI is coming along, and specifically computer vision. You can google it yourself. From the DARPA Grand Challenge to NASA and many other ventures, computer vision is being improved. The more improvement there is for computer vision, the better the algorithms can get for recognizing protien smears on a picture.
I think that you will find there are people who are not only using visual scanning, but compiling this with IR and other types of scanning to better analyze the material.
Computer based vision analysis is everywhere around you. The airline industry uses robotic scanners to look for structural defects in planes by scanning every mm of the surface in several ways. This is done mostly by computers.
Mining and geologic communities are putting robots with computer vision and scanning software to work to find thing that is just impossible by the human eye. Say a robotic helicopter flying over a mountainous area scanning for fire prone areas using IR, sonic and other types of scanning.
The oil industry has been using image analysis for years to find better oil sources in the earth.
This type of stuff is all around us. Finding F/OSS sources of it is perhaps just a matter of scanning for it. Better yet, when you find some, put out some payola to support their efforts. There are open source computer vision projects. Intel has made efforts to support this among others.
Electronics manufacturing is using it as well. I think that if you can focus some funds toward the right group, they will have the tools to develop the specific types of image analysis that you require for your industry.
I imagine that scanning protien smears is not much more difficult than finding micrometer sized fractures in the skin of an airplane, or finding hard to see stars using amature telescopes and computer driven camera technology.
Spend some time with your new friend Google.
A real geek would have built a mechanical keyboard with voice input to eliminate all that nasty keystroking altogether....
Points for effort, but come on, go all the way, the Rube Goldberg keyboard is the one that I want!!
that this type of attack has most probably been going on for years, without being detected.
More sophisticated worms and trojans will happen. Think of a virus that stealthily hides on computers, moving across the network till it finds itself on a machine in domain xyz.com. Once there it promulgates quietly, doing no damage, until one of its copies finds files of the variety xxxxx.xls. Then slowly searching those files, sending bits of it back to a server on the internet disguised as mail from the user of that machine.
It gets even scarier. Imagine that virus looking for your company's cvs server?
The only thing that I can think of to combat it is to ensure that all applications are checked before being run, and that they have certification by company security infrastructure. This might prevent joe bloggs from working at home and bringing the trojan to work with him.
It can be done if the program is executed by the user without verification of certification etc.
To totally lock down your network will become very difficult in the future. Commercial antivirus vendors will have to work very closely with OS groups to actually create a secure computing environment.... and user's will not like the efforts they have to go through to participate in that secure environment.
The current efforts by software vendors and groups will not even come close to stopping such spyware programs.
Well, that's how I see it anyway... who knows for sure.
To others it means life evolves and all religion dies
What? You mean that religion is still alive? I thought we killed that with priests sexual behaviors & coverups, gay marriages, and general rememberances of holy wars?
The trouble with religion is that it mandates that you must justify everything to fit your previously held views and faith rather than explore and make up your own mind when presented with another possible take on the universe.
Its a shame, or perhaps just sham, that religion has anything to do with it. It is space exploration, no more startling than when Columbus went looking for tea bags by heading for Florida.
For some reason people think that life on other planets means something religious? It means that there is life on other planets. If your faith has no room for an omniscent god to have created life on some planet that you aren't part of, I pity you.
Perhaps it would be better if we ALL simply sat down and decided that these old religious things we carry around are not right, and a new view is in order?
OMG! If this analysis was done by *THE* Al CAIDA group, then you know it has to be right. err, I mean, those guys know lots about viruses and terrorism and worms and dirt floors and stuff...
nuff said
I have to disagree with this. The Internet, as it was invented, intended, and as it has been adopted ... none of these things ever included regulation. All efforts are being, and have been made to work around network problems.
The fact that the Internet exists doesn't translate to a need for the government or anyone else to guarantee that it operates without hiccups. I tire very easily of those that take the stance that the Internet and services based on the Internet should work flawlessly, and if needed, the network should be regulated to ensure that they do.
This kind of thinking is socialist in nature, and the Internet (as it is now defined) is totally antihtesis to this notion.
There is no current methodology for regulating a global phenomenon. No single government, despite their aspirations, can achieve regulation of a global network. Spam comes from every corner of the globe, and like fire ants, when you think you have eliminated it, it will show up from some other spot you have no control over.
Anonymity, or stealth on the Internet is part and parcel of what it is. Tracing someone's work over the Internet necessarily should be difficult. That people have made efforts to make it even more difficult is nothing more than living in the spirit of free flow of information without retribution.
While some of you might feel that this is not needed, there are disidents in some countries that really would like to have this kind of anonymity. Who are we to deny it to them on the basis of our view of the world?
Liberty and freedom only happens when you truly are free to say and do as you please (so long as you don't violate anyone else's freedom) and publishing what you think and feel is not against that. There are actual valid reasons for ultra privacy.
To say that netizens or Internet users should be responsible is to intimate that there is a set of regulations that they should abide by that is significant and pertains only to the Internet.
There are laws and social norms of decency that all should abide by whether they are on the Internet or in the local convenience store.
Sure, there will be those that abuse any leniencey, but there always is, no matter what the law or social morality says. Those that think there should be more regulation on the Internet might be better off staying off of the Internet... go get an AOL subscription... or something like that.
Just two cents worth
I remember seeing some science show about this rover and the exhaustive efforts that they went through to design and test the wheels in various conditions.
Perhaps I'm simplifying it, but for all the money the spent on the wheels, they could have designed them to have inflatable monster-mudder style blades, like tractor tires have, to pop out of the surface when needed, such as has been the case recently????
(CSIRO) Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization ....
Looks like more IP / Copyright litigation to me. WLAN has too many standards, too many cooks, too many IP holders to ever really get anywhere without a fight.
I'm interested to see how this works out. A patent is there to protect the inventor and let them make some money... now the big corps (it seems) don't want to play by those rules because it is costing them money?
I don't know anymore... I think the problem would be mitigated much easier if all the lawyers just dropped out of sight, or dead, whichever comes first.
eyes
I think that any bill or law like this has all the teeth that the law against anal intercourse does in Texas. Its only used to prosecute those that the government and/or its most ardent lobbyists want to prosecute, at which point legal action is rammed through (so to speak) in a way that makes it very difficult for anyone to defend themselves should they be the target of this type of law.
Any law that is practically unenforcable is only ever enacted in order to have it handy like a law against rats being in your garage, so its like a big baseball bat for when you think you see a rat in the corner of the garage.
To me, this signifies that the lawmakers of Washington state, and their lobbyists are guilty of one of two things:
Complete ignorance and ineptitude regarding the Internet and how it actually works
- or -
Collusion with certain parties in order to help those that they want to help and to hammer those they don't...
Seeing as Redmond is in Washington state (duh) I can only image that the reason for this is to further the plans of Microsoft.
just my thoughts...
One more nail in the coffin of the old way of doing things. Podcasts and Internet broadcasting are the beginnings of a revolution of sorts. Digital media distribution *MUST* not be dictated by those that made their money on physical distribution until and unless they can show they know what they are doing. It is high time that digital content was distributed digitally in the way that the Internet was designed to distribute it.
... there is no Internet Emmy's or Tony's .... maybe there should be?
Yeah, I know, sounds like a troll-ish. Trouble is that there seems to be no place in particular to award such digital content distributors
I don't care whether the first shows are about pigs or making toothpicks as long as there are shows... "build it and they will come"
Its just time for people to use the Internet as it was intended, to use it for freedom of information and to distribute information, free of the chains of old style distribution methods and business models.
It about time.... about time that the RIAA and MPAA found out about this new thing called the Internet and what it can do for the world! Any startup is welcome in my mind, "build it and they will come"
Yeah, I know that public/local access cable programs never really caught on, but I think that with a little effort, the Internet will catch on as a mainstream distribution medium. Not just for captain cable and aunt millie with her advice for growing roses, but for mainstream content, both video and music, news, weather, everything....
Any effort, IMHO, is appreciated and applauded. Its time we set up some InternEmmy awards????
Personally, this makes me wonder why I would ever give anyone my SSN, unless they can prove they will live up to their federally mandated responsibilities.
This just shows that most companies and governments cannot do so.
would anyone have listened to them if they hadn't gone public?
If kids can do it, why would this be a problem for the kids? Shouldn't it be publically shown that the system was insecure, not that it was breached?
When is it that our governments will be responsible?
just a thought....
ROFLMAO, sorry, I hit submit before preview.... my right hand has a twitch sometimes... LOL
God I hate it when I see this 'stuff' and have no mod points
trying to keep the tide from the beach.... Every attempt at regulating the Internet or its use will fail. The only successful prosecutions are when it is proven that the user's use of the Internet violated another law that has nothing to do with the Internet. Of course this will fail, they have little if any power to enforce this law, and this is probably something related to other, unrelated, political interests anyway. I wish the world would wake up and start openly and vociferously laughing at public figures that believe they can enact laws to stop people from expressing themselves or trying every means possible to take advantage of other simply by making a law that says its illegal to do so. If there is no teeth in the law, then it is just a waste of taxpayer's money, and the governments time and resources. Geez Beaver, do you really think you're mom will find out? Lunacy, that's what it is. I cannot believe that anyone would think it is possible to regulate the Internet. Some countries may be able to stop access to sites deemed 'not good' but in the end, all they are doing is denying access to information... hmmm lets see, what happened the last time that people thought burning books was a good idea? As for making it illegal, every country (almost) already has laws against fraud and theft, or anything else that spam and spyware can do. Why not just enforce those laws? The reason? I will suggest it is because government find themselves impotent to do anything about something they have no clue how it works, and they want to find a way to garner votes in the next election... so it looks good if they seem to be doing something about the latest Internet threat.... Like has already been said, the real threat to user's information is themselves. Most user's gladly give away their information without a second thought because they trust anyone that has a website, OMG, they have a website on the Internet, they must be legitimate..... There is no law, or even book of laws that will protect a fool or foolish people. A fool and his (or her) personal information, like their money, are soon parted. Lets all just enforce the laws that are already in effect. Spyware, that gives the author or originator information required to steal from a user without their consent is illegal already, it is called theft, scam artistry, and other names. Whether the scam artist used the Internet or e-mail matters not, they are guilty of crimes. These 'new internet laws' are only evidence that our governments are both impotent to do anything and clueless as to how to do so. Its time we all started voting smarter? Hey, no comments on how I voted... my preferences have changed 6 times since 911.
Yes, I do consider IBM to be a big vendor, who is making contributions, and knows how to do so. I didn't mention them ... wasn't thorough enough. I think that all big vendors working with an ally that can't necessarily be easily bought out or run out of business will be how they take back market share from Microsoft.
My prediction is small enterprise inroads while trying to solidify a home/SMB user base. In the background, I think we will see Microsoft opponents working to establish F/OSS (supported by big vendors or not) working to make inroads on enterprise class network management, storage management, and other things that Microsoft is working to keep or get hold of.
When F/OSS (whether supported by big vendors or not) starts to offer complete (though possibly disparately sourced) solutions for SMB and enterprise level customers, then the non-Microsoft big vendors will have a chance to take back market share in those domains.
Reliability and 24/7 support is something that F/OSS doesn't yet offer. Through big iron vendors, this might become reality. And so there is room for more than just RH enterprise linux. The other players have yet to establish their expertise (F/OSS-wise) in that domain. As they do, we will see the fabric of the software industry change and morph yet more.
Example: Free Solaris, but getting the value adds that enterprises need will cost some $$. In this business model, they can compete head-on with Microsoft but compatability is the key to any successes in doing so. When compatability with Microsoft products is effectively eliminated as a reason to buy more Microsoft products, the entire industry, and yes the end user, will benefit greatly. I see this as an inevitable redistribution or balance of power so to speak.
We already see big vendors modifying their business models and marketing. More of this will follow. Now that everyone has heard of Linux and Firefox etc. it will be those that understand and support this 'new stuff' that have marketing edge, while Microsoft (arguably) will have to defend against this new and wonderful software stuff. The average user doesn't really know, and the average business guy (not well informed IT staff) doesn't know how to calculate ROI, or true cost of ownership for any OS, nevermind compare one to another.
So the game begins, and it is about money. Someone commented that I had forgotten that, but not true. The real question is where to create revenue streams when your competition is working for free, and can't really be bought? The old business models are not going to work so well from now on. Sure, there are business values that will still work, like building a reputation on being reliable, trustworthy, have products well worth their cost, and provide superb support. Its difficult to find a business model in the changing fabric of the software industry right now, and I see the big iron vendors working to position themselves to take advantage of any revenue stream that they can, especially when it involves taking from Microsoft. (even if it looks like colusion to start with)
Innovation is the one thing that will always garner revenue. The only truly innovative thing that has happened recently is the trend in the software industry to take F/OSS seriously. I think that we will see the big iron vendors finding ways to innovate, to reinvent themsleves so to speak. This will create revenue streams that do not compete head-on with Microsoft, and will bolster their positions in the industry as well.
It is without doubt a very coplex situation and equation. There are plenty of people (myself included) that will try to tell you where things are heading. The one thing that I know for certain is this: IBM, Sun et al could not have found a better partner than F/OSS in fighting Microsoft's grip on the software industry. Eventually people that know NAS, SAN, backup, data center architecture etc. will become involved with F/OSS and by partnering with the big iron vendors, they will find revenue
There has to be a joke about 4WD enthusiasts, a couple of 12 packs, and an alliance between the Monster truck association and NASA.
What if some of these ideas are part correct? If Sun is looking to cooperate on single sign-on, or other issues of compatability, as well as cozy up to OSS and standards, that would put Sun in between two vitreous opponents. Its always been helpful to me to try to see what this behavior would benefit the actor.
/.-ers of the world. I think that highend graphics might have been much slower in coming along if it hadn't been for gamers and tech-heads. There are other examples where leading edge or application specific adaptations became standard issue and were lead by the early adaptors. Perhaps this lesson hasn't eluded some of the industry's big players? This Linux thing and the 'free' and OSS might just not be going away any time soon?
By being compatible with Windows, Sun keeps vitality in the enterprise domain. By working with F/OSS they keep vitality in the home pc domain. Now, vitality in this case may mean only survivability. None the less, it keeps Sun active on two fronts in the software wars.
If both Sun and Microsoft develop single sign-on and other compatability efforts, surely the F/OSS world will gain from this?
If Sun is attacking Microsoft's grip on the software industry by playing both sides against the middle, they stand to gain in the aftermath of any battle over any facet of software in the general marketplace. Someone has to end up making money from all this F/OSS effort. RedHat is not doing too badly, and there seems to be room for at least one more *nix player in the Enterprise domain.
This of course might be totally wrong, but I can see big iron vendors spending much more time working with F/OSS and at the same time, not starting any new battles head-on with Microsoft.
There is a certain danger to ignoring the
SCO seems to have made itself irrelevant by playing things the old school way. It didn't go well for them. Perhaps this is also written on the board room walls at Sun? Billion dollar lawsuits are not very popular these days.
Whatever the outcome, it looks to me like F/OSS is having a positive effect on the software industry as a whole, and we can now see very big vendors trying to find a place in the new marketplace of the software industry.
The one thing that I think will make a *nix distribution stable enough for the Enterprise market is the backing / support of a very big vendor that already knows how to make enterprise class software and computing systems. There is still room for a Solaris in the enterprise, and if 10 installed a bit better with more support for my hardware, I'd be running it at home.
I personally would like to see Sun make a better offering in the free OS realm. Solaris is a very stable OS, despite any objections that some might have. I'd definitely test anything that Sun supports or assists with.
If they can work out the wrinkles with Microsoft, and keep things stable for a bit, it seems possible that Sun could be working to pull off the theft of a bigger marketshare from Microsoft.
Just my thoughts.
There are a couple of very simple lessons to be learned about DOS that should be heard by everyone (I think):
LESSON: Easier may not be better, but more people buy it. Windows was easier for grandma to use than command line interfaces, and thus made DOS obsolete.
LESSON: A product that is targeted to hardware and to a userbase will get market share. DOS was a derivitave work aimed at the microcomputer of the day. This allowed the average company or person to buy that hardware and use it effectively. Its target users were anyone that wanted stand alone computing resources, free of mainframes.
LESSON: Control is not the answer, simplicity is. Because DOS could be installed by anyone on almost any compatible machine, buying it made sense, and money was spent for the version of DOS that had the features required for the job. For this very reason, Microsoft has garnered a long list of detractors.
For the *nix world, what should be learned is that if you want to do something right, make it simple and easy to use by anyone. Make it portable: that is to say, yourLinux should work on many or any hardware platform that would be used by your target userbase. If you are targeting people who want to build their HTPC then by all means, make your own version of Linux if you find benefit to this, otherwise, use some other stable distribution and package it with the software you need to give the end user a sleek and easy installation and maintenance of their HTPC system. If you feel the need to innovate, remember that simple is when you take a good idea and make it usable on any *nix distro, and compatible with other OSs. It is the ease of use that creates marketshare.
While *nix developers struggle with competing with entrenched software vendors, it is time to remember that to beat them you have to be better, not simply a good-enough alternative if you want to get grandma and aunt velda using your code.
Just some thoughts...