Here's a thought..... Its not secret anymore. With the release of Solaris 10 as free, is it any wonder that Oracle would look at opening its market share a bit with a similar move.
I think the real news here is that F/OSS is having an effect on the software industry. I believe that effect is a good one. Solaris 10 might not be the best thing I've ever seen, its a start. Oracle working in their domain space to open up things like CRM, SAP, and other areas is a damn good thing. If they can produce something that opens these and other markets to F/OSS then the competition gets tougher and more wide spread.
The opening of Microsoft dominated markets is nothing but good news. Any weakening of their grip on the software industry in any domain opens up that market so even proprietary vendors have a shot at it.
This move doesn't surprise me at all, in fact, I believe that we will see much more of this. It costs very little in terms of lock-in and other long term financial factors to work with F/OSS to open up a market that is practically locked down by a single vendor, whether that vendor is Microsoft or not.
A long time ago, it was said that you could never get fired for buying big blue. That kind of reputation is one that Microsoft never achieved. The software industry began changing so fast that it never could get that reputation, but the fallout of the fast paced changes is that if you have a reputation of great support and super value for money you will end up with market share. This is still in the process of becomming a defacto standard.
As F/OSS products become more technically and financially strong, it is in the best interests of any software vendor to work with those products, even promote and support them.
A product or two that runs on an Oracle backend product and directly competes with Microsoft etc. is a good thing... it opens up the market to more competition. If it will run on Oracle, it can probably run on mySQL etc. What options it ends up with is of little concern if it takes market share from the dominant player in that market.
Since people with little budgets are not Oracles main revenue stream, these new products would directly mangle revenue streams of Microsoft and make Oracle the version that you would use if you had to scale to large size operations.
The replies are all good, but I think what is not said is this; When people use computers, there is inevitably the desire for faster better more. Those that are uninformed enough to not know better are the ones that end up with virii and other problems. The solutions to those problems are not cheap on resources. The initial thought was this: if they once get started on text Internet browsing and e-mail, like a crack addict, they will want more...
Change a two lane highway to 5 lanes and it will soon be just as blocked.... but with 2.5 times the cars.... give a person internet access, and very shortly they will want high speed access. To the uniniated, when they have access, they will think they should be able to do what others can do, and their perception will be that their access and resources suck. That is inevitable. This is why I titled the post Moore's corollary.
For every hour of use, the desire for bigger-better-faster-more will increase by a facter of 2 or more. (more or less)
I have broadband and a 2.6g processor with 1/2 a terabyte of quite fast storage and I still think it should be faster. I don't even play games!!
Introducing cheap (read not up to par) computers to people will only act like getting them hooked on crack. They will NOT say, oh, its just slow and accept that because there are so many examples elsewhere of how it works much better.
Its a good idea, I agree, giving access to all, but I'm not convinced that this is the answer... it is however a start. I believe that this will show the world empiracally that information access is as addictive as crack cocaine, and that lack of access is tantamount to opression.
Oooohhh the leads that gives to F/OSS... but I won't go there.... yet.
The point again is that this is a noble experiment, but will ultimately prove the Moore's corollary that I suggest. Time will tell....
Its interesting that everytime I read anything about H1B or offshore outsourcing or tech labor shortage etc., the authors never seem to cover all the bases. Does anyone know of links to good information that covers all, or at least most, of the known relevant facts surrounding this issue in the U.S.?
FTA: It will have no hard disk but will have built-in memory and facility to plug in memory cards for any storage over and above that provided for in the built-in memory. It will not have games. High-speed computing is ruled out. The reasoning is that "while adding to the cost, these are of no use to many users.''
The main aim, Mr. Deshpande said, was to develop a system that was affordable and provided the essential features, "without the unnecessary fluff of the conventional systems.'' The target audience is households, small shops, professionals such as lawyers and chartered accountants, and field staff of pharmaceutical, insurance and other industries. It could be used as e-book readers by educational institutions, for telemedicine and as a nurse's aide.
Well, this doesn't look much like a market for Microsoft to play in. I wonder how long it will be before the intended users want to play games, or run Excel? Something tells me that it will be day zero.
I wonder... some things have managed to make a very strong market share out of something or invention that was not understood, or had shaky legal basis in the past. Like was said here, what is the market (in units) for PDA's? What is the market for hand-size mobile computing?
There are several companies out there that keep hammering away at this market (even though it is not very big or profitable) and eventually, we will all become unimpressed with phones that don't have calendars, address books, do text messaging etc.
I guess that my point is this: does anyone see where this is going? Can anyone accurately predict what protocols, air interfaces, and file format standards will end up winning in this (now) mobile free for all?
I predict that the sheer size and market control that M$ has will play more than a significant role in this. To the point that I think anti-trust laws should be used to address anything M$ becomes involved in.... more or less. Not that I have any real fear that Excel will become a useful mobile application anytime before Cray starts making PDAs'
There are currently so many competing wireless interfaces and protocols, I don't see how anyone getting into the game can imagine they will make money unless they believe that they will be able to manhandle the market place and simply be able to metaphorically bludgeon the competition to death.
RIM started small, and with what I think was a sound business model. As they make their move into the more consumer oriented marketplace, it is a shame that they will have to fight M$ just to get in the game...
My real fear is that in the future you won't be able to get a phone without windozeXX on it, or be able to use any air interface not supported by M$ pocket-mobile-crap software.
I know that sounds a little defeatist, but I don't see any strong competition to M$... sigh
Well, Florida does seem to harbor scammers of almost every kind, but removing all computers from Florida won't even begin to stem the tide of spam in your e-mail inbox.
Because of the very design (or lack of) of the Internet, it is not possible to locate and eliminate the source of spam with anything near 100% efficacy.
The only answer is not a single answer, but many small efforts to both block, and eliminate spam. There are currently laws to prosecute spammers, but the governments of the world are more or less impotent when it comes to catching and stopping spammers. Like any good scammer, they are always looking for loopholes and workarounds for anything that is put in their way.
Only education and a concerted global community effort will stop them. They are obviously making money or they wouldn't bother to send out that spam. Really, they don't send it just to irritate you or I, they send it because there are smucks in the world that click on the links and hand over cash for whatever is being sold.
The real way to stop SPAM is by using an approach that includes everything we know or will know about stopping it:
-Educating users to press delete first -Hardened mail servers -OSS based instant notification to the global community of new spam identifiers -OSS based listing of spam identifiers, with something like/. to identify an email/content as spam, and given enough karma on it, all other subscribers can add it to their filtering lists -Actual use of white and black lists by default on e-mail clients -many many more mail servers scanning emails, even small modem sized proxies doing it for home users
and the list goes on. Until we are furiously implementing all methods instead of looking for one killer app to get rid of spam, it will exist.
Wow, this whole big brother thing is out of control. The math doesn't add up.
Everyone has seemed to be getting along fine with the traffic cameras, including the ones that catch you running a red light. As long as the technology to assist the constabulary is marked as such, and advertised, such as would be the case with a cop car sitting on the corner, there is no 'big brother' conspiratorial effort to remove your rights in any form.
Using technology to reduce redundant efforts by the police so that they can be doing something that is more important than noise abatement is a damn good thing. Its no different than the window watcher down the street using her video camera to record a bunch of drunks raising hell on the corner and giving the cops the tape.
The people that might have issue with this probably would have more of an issue if there were cops on every corner just so they could handle things like simple noise abatement and jay walking. It really does come down to the fact that if you are doing nothing wrong, no harm no foul.
Just the same, such technology should not be used without oversight. Yes, sure, a policeman on the corner doesn't have to report all that they hear, but technology will hear more, and record more, and like was mentioned, if the system is hacked, it becomes a tool for the bad guys too!
Not to mention those here that will think the bad guys are the ones putting the mics on the street. I still have this general problem with the balance of evidence on conspiracies. If big brother is so effective at spying, why do we still have spam? Why haven't they caught Bin Laden? Why is there still kiddie porn on the Internet? and a whole long list of things that they should have gotten rid of if big brother really was effective in this respect. Witness one dying 'carnivore' program.
I can just see some poor developer now,
MANAGER: "Can you build a database like that?" DEV: "Huh?" MANAGER: "but... but..." DEV: "You need to put the crack pipe down! There is no way that I can take $65k/year and build a database to log and analyze 1700 hours of voice / noise audio per day!" MANAGER: "but we've got Linux.... and there is that 'spintronics' thing?" DEV: silence.....
IMHO, there is one easy, yet mildly inconvenient method to keep bank logins secure. Once you have logged in, and before any information is displayed or your account accessed, their system calls your home number and prompts you for your login, to then give you a 7 digit validation number. Even if the phishers or keyloggers get that number, it will be different when they try to login to your account.
Sure, they could stand in the alleyway behind your house and hack the phoneline using a wireless connection (maybe) but that requires a great deal of physical effort and proximity to your house, which is too much effort for people that are trying to steal thousands of accounts.
Just what we need, now even wiretap attempts are going to make it look like the IT guys don't have a clue what they are doing with the network...
I can just see the look of astonishment, $20,000+ later, and Fred in IT still can't get the conference call thingy to work...
Looks like they will have some work on their hands... finding a use that justifies the cost, as well as finding customer's who think spending that kind of money for a phone call is justified. Look at all the companies that are losing customer data? Do you really think they will spend that much on a conference call? Not likely, so what is the real application of this technology? I mean, what application will this eventually end up in? DMCA aware HD broadcasts? Military communications? Its not going to end up in the home pc anytime soon, so what application will pay for the R&D?
I think I agree with the parent. Databases are methods of storing and retrieving data. Trying to make queries fuzzy, or less structured is just wrong.
If you want to be able to ask probablistic type queries of a database, you need to add some code between you and the database.
More to the point, the fuzzier your logic is, the higher the probability that your database will not contain all of the answers on its own, and you will have to cross reference your data to the data owned by someone else or gathered from a different disparate source.
It sounds like M$ is going to try to re-invent data warehousing? and then of course, patent it.
Trying to make the database do everything is not right and simply doesn't make sense. The code that accesses the data for you needs to do the fuzzy probablistic stuff.
P.S. I have no faith that M$ (no matter who they hire) can effectively provide the code required to make it work in the idealistic manner spoken of... mostly because they would have to patent accessing other people's data before they could do it.
Not flamebait, but I can see this leading somewhere really nasty...
If Microsoft admits to using bloggs to spread their marketing messages, how long before some high minded idiot in government suggests that such things should be subject to the same regulations as infomercials?
Just one more stepping stone toward regulating the Internet and how consumers use technology in order to protect consumers from the real villains, all done by way of restricting personal freedoms instead of prosecuting the bad guys!
You my friend, speak as though you have never tried to make any embedded system do anything. Sure, your.net application might be good, but until you have made an embedded system do something, be quiet....please.
Actually, this depends on your cleverness and your design goals. There is always limits. My point is that Vex doesn't even give you limits of autonomy, it is simply an R/C system. The LEGO set at least allows the user to explore programming and system design. Even if you are programming an FPGA, there are limits, so there are no robotics kits that are going to allow you to choose your version of artificial intelligence, everything is limited. My point is that Vex provides less for the money than other available kits, and this article is mostly, if not all, about advertisement.
And Vex offers autonomy when? LEGO offers is now, have for several years, for only $200 USD... I do have my facts straight. Get your head around the fact that robotic enthusiasts are more than FIRST, and what marketing really is... geez you can always spend tons of money on a robot, but anyone that claims to have the robot hobby answer for any competition is just wrong. Vex is nothing more than an Erector set with an R/C system added. It is not a robotics set... its just a clever R/C system, and it costs $100 more than a LEGO set that gives you both autonomy and remote control.
Are you sure that you are not affiliated with the vexrobitics comany? This sounds like a blatant attempt to advertise and gain notoriety.
LEGO is cheaper, and building your own is even more inexpensive. Vex parts are sold through Radio Shack, are not inexpensive, and do not lend themselves to further experimentation by hobbyists.
The whole thing is a ploy to make money from honest competitions and interest. If Vex really had anything to offer, there would be no need for advertisement or commercial retail channels.
I know this because I am an autonomous robot hobby enthusiast. Vex is just wrong for the market they aim to sell to, and have no altruistic intent.
I take it that you, honestly, believe and trust in pharmacuetical companies? Information is power and anything that affects all of us should and needs to be available to all, and not simply in the hands of the government and patent office. When you are informed enough to know if a new drug is harmful, and no longer need to listend to weight loss advertisements because you listened to another group who has access to the information and knows different... well, your argument falls flat right there... who do you think is being protected? perhaps you think these people are affiliates of your guardian angel? fuck... get real
FTA "DNA database are being put into the public domain"
Again, we find information and data that SHOULD be in the public domain, yet the patent office, government, and kickbacks protect those that stand to make money?
Its time that we, as a populace, stand and shout for the rights of the public to information.
Sure, there are those that say that without protection, such innovation would be stiffled, and I counter with this... "should such efforts be in the public sector?"
Through emminent domain, they can take your property, but if you are a business, there seems to be no such thing. I hear of companies giving to this charity or that... but none are giving to the charity of mankind?
Information is power, and in this information age, it is time for those with the information to take power from those that would use it to extort finance and power from those that do not know better.
All such information should be in the public domain. Knowledge of the human genome, of anything that affects ALL of us, should be public information. For instance, any method of retrieving emergency information during an emergency should be in the public domain, not a subject of patent worthiness. The entire point of 911 service is to aid the community, not bilk them of dollars.
The entire point of scientific discovery is to learn and advance humankind... when it becomes simply a method of making money, the advancement of humankind goes in the trash like yesterdays junk mail. At that point, what is the point of funding science? Think bigger than your new BMW.
This might seem altruistic, but what is the point of discovery if your only reason to share is profit? When do you lose respect, when do you stop having authority? The ONLY method of advancing the human race is through sharing, through communal discovery.
Perhaps this will advance that purpose, perhaps it won't.
Perhaps I am repeating myself or someone else, but the point is not what is done with digital content, the point is what the laws are doing. Currently, they are reinforcing an outdated and unworkable distribution business model for the film and music industry.
The lure of being in those industries is the money that can be made... now there is a cultural revolution against that business model. The time is right for revolution...so to speak.
We keep talking about what is right and what is wrong, but we seem to skip over the facts. The facts simply stated, are that the law supports an outdated business model. The music and film industries cannot continue to force their ethics on the populace when the populace is revolting. Music and video content is simply not worth what is being charged. The current distribution and licensing practices DO NOT work in the information age. They used to work, but no longer. When anyone with a basement and some cheap electronic technology can duplicate what big industry is charging huge dollars for is common place as it is today, the old business models don't work.
Its time for the music and movie industry to get into the 20th century (yes, I said that right). Its time for them to get with reality. Sure, they deserve to be paid for their work, just like the rest of us, but like the airline industry, they do not deserve to be propped up by government so they can survive. If they cannot survive the changes on their own, so be it. Its time for a change, the old ways are not working.
Still, I have not seen or read any evidence that file sharing has damaged either industry, yet they seem to have the government's permission to harm anyone they feel like. This smacks of conspiracy and business based totalitarianism.
Sure, you can tell me that I'm wrong, that I have not respected the rights of these industries, but I have done something that you did not expect.... I have stated that its time for evolution or revolution. I don't particularly care if they go broke... there are literally millions of artists that want a cheap and easy way to get their art to the masses without having to deal with those big companies and their bias.
Anyone that thinks this is about the law is just kidding themselves... this is about evolution. It is time for thing to change. I'm tired of paying taxes just in case I decide to break a law, I'm tired of being thought to break the law before I actually do, I'm tired of people trying to enact law to prevent me from breaking other exisiting laws.
If business finds that the current laws are unenforcable, they need to look at what they are doing and how they are making their money. Small businesses have to weigh the value of persuing a patent infringement case against larger companies and individuals against what is good for the business. The music and video industries have SO MUCH MONEY that they don't have to worry about it... they just bring the litigation because the cost is a pittance against what they stand to gain. The patent and copyright laws have, in essence, broken the anti-trust laws, in order to protect the very rich and powerful, those that don't need protection.
They have successfully perverted the intent and design of the laws they use to protect their profits.
IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE... EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION
that the problem with the patent system, in the USA or anywhere else, is that it represents the bleeding edge of technological evolution and creation. The speed at which technology is advancing is so fast that it is nearly impossible to keep up with advancements in your own chosen field, never mind those in 1000s of other fields of technology.
For the patent offices and patent laws to make sense, it requires that those working in the patent offices and patent law professions to be kept abreast of all developments as they are happening. This is not a likely probability.
It also requires that the sum of all patents and their prospective resultant effects be analyzed and weighed against the prospective effect and byproducts of any new patent application.
Most people that I've heard or read seem only to talk of patents in terms of one aspect of this problem. The problem being that technology is advancing so fast that it is becomming inpossible to assess the good or damage that might come from granting patents.
In terms of this problem, it is easy to see that certain companies must not own too many related industries because this would become a danger to the economy and free enterprise. Likewise, it must also be viewed and assessed as to whether any one company or group of companies could do damage to the advance of technology and creation of advancements if they were to own too many patents or too many of a given kind of patent.
That is to say that is should be viewed as dangerous for a company that has the size and impact on global computing technology as M$ to have too many patents on things like the way the Internet works, or how information is exchanged between disparate organizations.
Sure, patent law is there to protect and encourage innovation, but when too much of that protection is in the hands of one person or one company, it is no longer protection, it is oppression of any one that might be in opposition to that person or company.
The length of a patent, or the depth of a patent is not so important as how many patents and what type are granted to an individual or company. When more than a few percent of related patents are issued to a single entity or person, the patent protection held in those grants becomes technological oppression.
This is what the problem is, and until patent law is judged in this way by all people, it will never been revised in a way that will advance innovation.
Doesn't looking back in time, in the respect of astronomy, infer a direct linear, or near linear view toward the center of the big bang? What I mean is, if you are looking orthoganaly at light eminating from a point not coming directly at you, you are not seeing as far back as you might if the light was coming directly toward you.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a thought.....
Its not secret anymore. With the release of Solaris 10 as free, is it any wonder that Oracle would look at opening its market share a bit with a similar move.
I think the real news here is that F/OSS is having an effect on the software industry. I believe that effect is a good one. Solaris 10 might not be the best thing I've ever seen, its a start. Oracle working in their domain space to open up things like CRM, SAP, and other areas is a damn good thing. If they can produce something that opens these and other markets to F/OSS then the competition gets tougher and more wide spread.
The opening of Microsoft dominated markets is nothing but good news. Any weakening of their grip on the software industry in any domain opens up that market so even proprietary vendors have a shot at it.
This move doesn't surprise me at all, in fact, I believe that we will see much more of this. It costs very little in terms of lock-in and other long term financial factors to work with F/OSS to open up a market that is practically locked down by a single vendor, whether that vendor is Microsoft or not.
A long time ago, it was said that you could never get fired for buying big blue. That kind of reputation is one that Microsoft never achieved. The software industry began changing so fast that it never could get that reputation, but the fallout of the fast paced changes is that if you have a reputation of great support and super value for money you will end up with market share. This is still in the process of becomming a defacto standard.
As F/OSS products become more technically and financially strong, it is in the best interests of any software vendor to work with those products, even promote and support them.
A product or two that runs on an Oracle backend product and directly competes with Microsoft etc. is a good thing... it opens up the market to more competition. If it will run on Oracle, it can probably run on mySQL etc. What options it ends up with is of little concern if it takes market share from the dominant player in that market.
Since people with little budgets are not Oracles main revenue stream, these new products would directly mangle revenue streams of Microsoft and make Oracle the version that you would use if you had to scale to large size operations.
It just makes sense.
A reply to my own post? ugghhh!
The replies are all good, but I think what is not said is this; When people use computers, there is inevitably the desire for faster better more. Those that are uninformed enough to not know better are the ones that end up with virii and other problems. The solutions to those problems are not cheap on resources. The initial thought was this: if they once get started on text Internet browsing and e-mail, like a crack addict, they will want more...
Change a two lane highway to 5 lanes and it will soon be just as blocked.... but with 2.5 times the cars.... give a person internet access, and very shortly they will want high speed access. To the uniniated, when they have access, they will think they should be able to do what others can do, and their perception will be that their access and resources suck. That is inevitable. This is why I titled the post Moore's corollary.
For every hour of use, the desire for bigger-better-faster-more will increase by a facter of 2 or more. (more or less)
I have broadband and a 2.6g processor with 1/2 a terabyte of quite fast storage and I still think it should be faster. I don't even play games!!
Introducing cheap (read not up to par) computers to people will only act like getting them hooked on crack. They will NOT say, oh, its just slow and accept that because there are so many examples elsewhere of how it works much better.
Its a good idea, I agree, giving access to all, but I'm not convinced that this is the answer... it is however a start. I believe that this will show the world empiracally that information access is as addictive as crack cocaine, and that lack of access is tantamount to opression.
Oooohhh the leads that gives to F/OSS... but I won't go there.... yet.
The point again is that this is a noble experiment, but will ultimately prove the Moore's corollary that I suggest. Time will tell....
For a mere $750, I've got a Mercury Mystique that is suitable for this type of modification. I take paypal, money order, and gold bullion.
Its interesting that everytime I read anything about H1B or offshore outsourcing or tech labor shortage etc., the authors never seem to cover all the bases. Does anyone know of links to good information that covers all, or at least most, of the known relevant facts surrounding this issue in the U.S.?
FTA: It will have no hard disk but will have built-in memory and facility to plug in memory cards for any storage over and above that provided for in the built-in memory. It will not have games. High-speed computing is ruled out. The reasoning is that "while adding to the cost, these are of no use to many users.''
The main aim, Mr. Deshpande said, was to develop a system that was affordable and provided the essential features, "without the unnecessary fluff of the conventional systems.'' The target audience is households, small shops, professionals such as lawyers and chartered accountants, and field staff of pharmaceutical, insurance and other industries. It could be used as e-book readers by educational institutions, for telemedicine and as a nurse's aide.
Well, this doesn't look much like a market for Microsoft to play in. I wonder how long it will be before the intended users want to play games, or run Excel? Something tells me that it will be day zero.
Hmmmmm
To some folk in the world, 5 hurricanes in a row in one small part of the world is considered "interesting".....
Skipping past peer review sort of invalidates the point of being some of the journals, doesn't it?
Hey, if you have something to say, we all want to be heard, but paid distribution of your comment may always be seen as self-promoting.
In either case, did anyone figure out if he was right?
I wonder ... some things have managed to make a very strong market share out of something or invention that was not understood, or had shaky legal basis in the past. Like was said here, what is the market (in units) for PDA's? What is the market for hand-size mobile computing?
There are several companies out there that keep hammering away at this market (even though it is not very big or profitable) and eventually, we will all become unimpressed with phones that don't have calendars, address books, do text messaging etc.
I guess that my point is this: does anyone see where this is going? Can anyone accurately predict what protocols, air interfaces, and file format standards will end up winning in this (now) mobile free for all?
I predict that the sheer size and market control that M$ has will play more than a significant role in this. To the point that I think anti-trust laws should be used to address anything M$ becomes involved in.... more or less. Not that I have any real fear that Excel will become a useful mobile application anytime before Cray starts making PDAs'
There are currently so many competing wireless interfaces and protocols, I don't see how anyone getting into the game can imagine they will make money unless they believe that they will be able to manhandle the market place and simply be able to metaphorically bludgeon the competition to death.
RIM started small, and with what I think was a sound business model. As they make their move into the more consumer oriented marketplace, it is a shame that they will have to fight M$ just to get in the game...
My real fear is that in the future you won't be able to get a phone without windozeXX on it, or be able to use any air interface not supported by M$ pocket-mobile-crap software.
I know that sounds a little defeatist, but I don't see any strong competition to M$... sigh
Well, Florida does seem to harbor scammers of almost every kind, but removing all computers from Florida won't even begin to stem the tide of spam in your e-mail inbox.
/. to identify an email/content as spam, and given enough karma on it, all other subscribers can add it to their filtering lists
Because of the very design (or lack of) of the Internet, it is not possible to locate and eliminate the source of spam with anything near 100% efficacy.
The only answer is not a single answer, but many small efforts to both block, and eliminate spam. There are currently laws to prosecute spammers, but the governments of the world are more or less impotent when it comes to catching and stopping spammers. Like any good scammer, they are always looking for loopholes and workarounds for anything that is put in their way.
Only education and a concerted global community effort will stop them. They are obviously making money or they wouldn't bother to send out that spam. Really, they don't send it just to irritate you or I, they send it because there are smucks in the world that click on the links and hand over cash for whatever is being sold.
The real way to stop SPAM is by using an approach that includes everything we know or will know about stopping it:
-Educating users to press delete first
-Hardened mail servers
-OSS based instant notification to the global community of new spam identifiers
-OSS based listing of spam identifiers, with something like
-Actual use of white and black lists by default on e-mail clients
-many many more mail servers scanning emails, even small modem sized proxies doing it for home users
and the list goes on. Until we are furiously implementing all methods instead of looking for one killer app to get rid of spam, it will exist.
Just 2 cents worth
Wow, this whole big brother thing is out of control. The math doesn't add up.
Everyone has seemed to be getting along fine with the traffic cameras, including the ones that catch you running a red light. As long as the technology to assist the constabulary is marked as such, and advertised, such as would be the case with a cop car sitting on the corner, there is no 'big brother' conspiratorial effort to remove your rights in any form.
Using technology to reduce redundant efforts by the police so that they can be doing something that is more important than noise abatement is a damn good thing. Its no different than the window watcher down the street using her video camera to record a bunch of drunks raising hell on the corner and giving the cops the tape.
The people that might have issue with this probably would have more of an issue if there were cops on every corner just so they could handle things like simple noise abatement and jay walking. It really does come down to the fact that if you are doing nothing wrong, no harm no foul.
Just the same, such technology should not be used without oversight. Yes, sure, a policeman on the corner doesn't have to report all that they hear, but technology will hear more, and record more, and like was mentioned, if the system is hacked, it becomes a tool for the bad guys too!
Not to mention those here that will think the bad guys are the ones putting the mics on the street. I still have this general problem with the balance of evidence on conspiracies. If big brother is so effective at spying, why do we still have spam? Why haven't they caught Bin Laden? Why is there still kiddie porn on the Internet? and a whole long list of things that they should have gotten rid of if big brother really was effective in this respect. Witness one dying 'carnivore' program.
I can just see some poor developer now,
MANAGER: "Can you build a database like that?"
DEV: "Huh?"
MANAGER: "but... but..."
DEV: "You need to put the crack pipe down! There is no way that I can take $65k/year and build a database to log and analyze 1700 hours of voice / noise audio per day!"
MANAGER: "but we've got Linux.... and there is that 'spintronics' thing?"
DEV: silence.....
Does anyone have experience using a caching web proxy for their home use? If so, did you see any browsing acceleration?
IMHO, there is one easy, yet mildly inconvenient method to keep bank logins secure. Once you have logged in, and before any information is displayed or your account accessed, their system calls your home number and prompts you for your login, to then give you a 7 digit validation number. Even if the phishers or keyloggers get that number, it will be different when they try to login to your account.
Sure, they could stand in the alleyway behind your house and hack the phoneline using a wireless connection (maybe) but that requires a great deal of physical effort and proximity to your house, which is too much effort for people that are trying to steal thousands of accounts.
Just what we need, now even wiretap attempts are going to make it look like the IT guys don't have a clue what they are doing with the network...
I can just see the look of astonishment, $20,000+ later, and Fred in IT still can't get the conference call thingy to work...
Looks like they will have some work on their hands... finding a use that justifies the cost, as well as finding customer's who think spending that kind of money for a phone call is justified. Look at all the companies that are losing customer data? Do you really think they will spend that much on a conference call? Not likely, so what is the real application of this technology? I mean, what application will this eventually end up in? DMCA aware HD broadcasts? Military communications? Its not going to end up in the home pc anytime soon, so what application will pay for the R&D?
I think I agree with the parent. Databases are methods of storing and retrieving data. Trying to make queries fuzzy, or less structured is just wrong.
If you want to be able to ask probablistic type queries of a database, you need to add some code between you and the database.
More to the point, the fuzzier your logic is, the higher the probability that your database will not contain all of the answers on its own, and you will have to cross reference your data to the data owned by someone else or gathered from a different disparate source.
It sounds like M$ is going to try to re-invent data warehousing? and then of course, patent it.
Trying to make the database do everything is not right and simply doesn't make sense. The code that accesses the data for you needs to do the fuzzy probablistic stuff.
P.S. I have no faith that M$ (no matter who they hire) can effectively provide the code required to make it work in the idealistic manner spoken of... mostly because they would have to patent accessing other people's data before they could do it.
Just my thoughts
Not flamebait, but I can see this leading somewhere really nasty...
If Microsoft admits to using bloggs to spread their marketing messages, how long before some high minded idiot in government suggests that such things should be subject to the same regulations as infomercials?
Just one more stepping stone toward regulating the Internet and how consumers use technology in order to protect consumers from the real villains, all done by way of restricting personal freedoms instead of prosecuting the bad guys!
Just 2 cents worth...
You my friend, speak as though you have never tried to make any embedded system do anything. Sure, your .net application might be good, but until you have made an embedded system do something, be quiet....please.
Actually, this depends on your cleverness and your design goals. There is always limits. My point is that Vex doesn't even give you limits of autonomy, it is simply an R/C system. The LEGO set at least allows the user to explore programming and system design. Even if you are programming an FPGA, there are limits, so there are no robotics kits that are going to allow you to choose your version of artificial intelligence, everything is limited. My point is that Vex provides less for the money than other available kits, and this article is mostly, if not all, about advertisement.
And Vex offers autonomy when? LEGO offers is now, have for several years, for only $200 USD... I do have my facts straight. Get your head around the fact that robotic enthusiasts are more than FIRST, and what marketing really is... geez you can always spend tons of money on a robot, but anyone that claims to have the robot hobby answer for any competition is just wrong. Vex is nothing more than an Erector set with an R/C system added. It is not a robotics set... its just a clever R/C system, and it costs $100 more than a LEGO set that gives you both autonomy and remote control.
Its not a troll or flamebate when its the truth!
That made me laugh... OMG
Are you sure that you are not affiliated with the vexrobitics comany? This sounds like a blatant attempt to advertise and gain notoriety.
LEGO is cheaper, and building your own is even more inexpensive. Vex parts are sold through Radio Shack, are not inexpensive, and do not lend themselves to further experimentation by hobbyists.
The whole thing is a ploy to make money from honest competitions and interest. If Vex really had anything to offer, there would be no need for advertisement or commercial retail channels.
I know this because I am an autonomous robot hobby enthusiast. Vex is just wrong for the market they aim to sell to, and have no altruistic intent.
This story is just a marketing attempt...
Baaahhh hummm bug
I take it that you, honestly, believe and trust in pharmacuetical companies? Information is power and anything that affects all of us should and needs to be available to all, and not simply in the hands of the government and patent office. When you are informed enough to know if a new drug is harmful, and no longer need to listend to weight loss advertisements because you listened to another group who has access to the information and knows different... well, your argument falls flat right there... who do you think is being protected? perhaps you think these people are affiliates of your guardian angel? fuck... get real
FTA "DNA database are being put into the public domain" Again, we find information and data that SHOULD be in the public domain, yet the patent office, government, and kickbacks protect those that stand to make money? Its time that we, as a populace, stand and shout for the rights of the public to information. Sure, there are those that say that without protection, such innovation would be stiffled, and I counter with this... "should such efforts be in the public sector?" Through emminent domain, they can take your property, but if you are a business, there seems to be no such thing. I hear of companies giving to this charity or that... but none are giving to the charity of mankind? Information is power, and in this information age, it is time for those with the information to take power from those that would use it to extort finance and power from those that do not know better. All such information should be in the public domain. Knowledge of the human genome, of anything that affects ALL of us, should be public information. For instance, any method of retrieving emergency information during an emergency should be in the public domain, not a subject of patent worthiness. The entire point of 911 service is to aid the community, not bilk them of dollars. The entire point of scientific discovery is to learn and advance humankind... when it becomes simply a method of making money, the advancement of humankind goes in the trash like yesterdays junk mail. At that point, what is the point of funding science? Think bigger than your new BMW. This might seem altruistic, but what is the point of discovery if your only reason to share is profit? When do you lose respect, when do you stop having authority? The ONLY method of advancing the human race is through sharing, through communal discovery. Perhaps this will advance that purpose, perhaps it won't.
Perhaps I am repeating myself or someone else, but the point is not what is done with digital content, the point is what the laws are doing. Currently, they are reinforcing an outdated and unworkable distribution business model for the film and music industry.
The lure of being in those industries is the money that can be made... now there is a cultural revolution against that business model. The time is right for revolution...so to speak.
We keep talking about what is right and what is wrong, but we seem to skip over the facts. The facts simply stated, are that the law supports an outdated business model. The music and film industries cannot continue to force their ethics on the populace when the populace is revolting. Music and video content is simply not worth what is being charged. The current distribution and licensing practices DO NOT work in the information age. They used to work, but no longer. When anyone with a basement and some cheap electronic technology can duplicate what big industry is charging huge dollars for is common place as it is today, the old business models don't work.
Its time for the music and movie industry to get into the 20th century (yes, I said that right). Its time for them to get with reality. Sure, they deserve to be paid for their work, just like the rest of us, but like the airline industry, they do not deserve to be propped up by government so they can survive. If they cannot survive the changes on their own, so be it. Its time for a change, the old ways are not working.
Still, I have not seen or read any evidence that file sharing has damaged either industry, yet they seem to have the government's permission to harm anyone they feel like. This smacks of conspiracy and business based totalitarianism.
Sure, you can tell me that I'm wrong, that I have not respected the rights of these industries, but I have done something that you did not expect.... I have stated that its time for evolution or revolution. I don't particularly care if they go broke... there are literally millions of artists that want a cheap and easy way to get their art to the masses without having to deal with those big companies and their bias.
Anyone that thinks this is about the law is just kidding themselves... this is about evolution. It is time for thing to change. I'm tired of paying taxes just in case I decide to break a law, I'm tired of being thought to break the law before I actually do, I'm tired of people trying to enact law to prevent me from breaking other exisiting laws.
If business finds that the current laws are unenforcable, they need to look at what they are doing and how they are making their money. Small businesses have to weigh the value of persuing a patent infringement case against larger companies and individuals against what is good for the business. The music and video industries have SO MUCH MONEY that they don't have to worry about it... they just bring the litigation because the cost is a pittance against what they stand to gain. The patent and copyright laws have, in essence, broken the anti-trust laws, in order to protect the very rich and powerful, those that don't need protection.
They have successfully perverted the intent and design of the laws they use to protect their profits.
IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE... EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION
YMMV
that the problem with the patent system, in the USA or anywhere else, is that it represents the bleeding edge of technological evolution and creation. The speed at which technology is advancing is so fast that it is nearly impossible to keep up with advancements in your own chosen field, never mind those in 1000s of other fields of technology.
For the patent offices and patent laws to make sense, it requires that those working in the patent offices and patent law professions to be kept abreast of all developments as they are happening. This is not a likely probability.
It also requires that the sum of all patents and their prospective resultant effects be analyzed and weighed against the prospective effect and byproducts of any new patent application.
Most people that I've heard or read seem only to talk of patents in terms of one aspect of this problem. The problem being that technology is advancing so fast that it is becomming inpossible to assess the good or damage that might come from granting patents.
In terms of this problem, it is easy to see that certain companies must not own too many related industries because this would become a danger to the economy and free enterprise. Likewise, it must also be viewed and assessed as to whether any one company or group of companies could do damage to the advance of technology and creation of advancements if they were to own too many patents or too many of a given kind of patent.
That is to say that is should be viewed as dangerous for a company that has the size and impact on global computing technology as M$ to have too many patents on things like the way the Internet works, or how information is exchanged between disparate organizations.
Sure, patent law is there to protect and encourage innovation, but when too much of that protection is in the hands of one person or one company, it is no longer protection, it is oppression of any one that might be in opposition to that person or company.
The length of a patent, or the depth of a patent is not so important as how many patents and what type are granted to an individual or company. When more than a few percent of related patents are issued to a single entity or person, the patent protection held in those grants becomes technological oppression.
This is what the problem is, and until patent law is judged in this way by all people, it will never been revised in a way that will advance innovation.
Just my tuppence worth... YMMV
Doesn't looking back in time, in the respect of astronomy, infer a direct linear, or near linear view toward the center of the big bang? What I mean is, if you are looking orthoganaly at light eminating from a point not coming directly at you, you are not seeing as far back as you might if the light was coming directly toward you.
Can anyone explain this?