I had thought that this would be clearly understood, but please tell the rest of us exactly what it is that most, or ALL terrorists do in the months before they commit their act of terror. Once we have that list, yes, unimaginably illegal profiling and data mining might net 'possible' terrorist suspects. Remember, you are not a terrorist until you have committed an act of terror. Possession of the Anarchists Cookbook does NOT make you a terrorist, just as owning a copy of Mein Kampf does not make you a Nazi.
Now, where do we stop? Lets look at what McVey liked to eat, and profile people like him. Perhaps we can also profile people that eat the same fscking foods as the DC snipers. Truly, a terrorist does not have to have any international ties, and thus you cannot hope to stop ALL terrorists. The law enforcement's record would be MUCH better than it is if they simply paid attention to the information that they garner with pre-9/11 methods. Oh wait...that sounds like I think they should be logical and use common sense... my bad
Why is the FBI full of fucking idiots? Sifting through billions of food purchases is not going to find a serious terror threat, not even when combined with any other data. For instance: John Ahmed Richardson has decided to become a terrorist after being recruited by militant persons. First, his flying lessons will not raise suspicions. Second, his explosives license for construction work will not either. Third, the chemical contaminants he will use to cause an eventual shutdown of a power grid are snuck into the country. Fourth, he hates fscking falafel.
So, all I can determine here is that the FBI is only interested in catching the stupid terrorists, or only able to do that, and does so to give itself a good name in the view of the public. Meanwhile actual and real determined terrorists work in secret and will manage to do what they desire without tipping off the FBI, the CIA, or any other law enforcement group. These law enforcement groups had valid actionable information about the 9/11 plot and ignored it. What good will it do them to find someone that likes Turkish food?
However, one of the disadvantages of open-source development is that anyone can scrutinize the source code to find vulnerabilities and write exploits. The source code in proprietary software, on the other hand, can't be directly viewed, meaning vulnerabilities need to be found through reverse engineering.'" If I remember right, that closed source thing... hmmm it seems to be working out really well for Microsoft.
I'd like to disagree with you on a minor point. It is not that we have no desire, it is that we have neither the required technology to inspire the desire nor the perceived value in a bang-for-buck kind of way.
If you could get a lawn care robot that just did it's thing without supervision or assistance, people would snap them up like Roombas. When such exists, they will be hot ticket items. It is the lack of value that is the problem. There are plenty of people that will go out on the bleeding edge for something that appears to have at least intrinsic value. We, in the US, generally don't need computerized friends... we have the intarwebs for god's sake.
My prediction is that the first form of accepted AI in the average American home will be a combination of AI and current home technologies (phone, security, Internet, entertainment etc.) such that the rise of robots comes like the rise of fascism... slowly, and with seeming need for it , but need for only one upgrade at a time.
Predictions such as your vehicle talking to your home PC regarding maintenance requirements etc. is but one such 'needed' function. Anthropomorphic robots will not fill the American xmas wish list, it will be this security add-on, or that multimedia upgrade, or the other appliance upgrade, until they are working as a single system, performing most of the duties of a single human maid/handyman.
may indeed be a distant headlight of a big oncoming train. I can't help but think that if more and more judges are making reasonable decisions, even if not enough such decisions, then the country is waking up from the darkness. Yes, I know, DST doesn't really help, but every little bit of goodness counts. It's not like jurisprudence works like the latest fashion fad, it takes time. Now, we only need for a couple of them to have emails go missing (seems a favorite of the current administration) to show culpability, or some semblance of it. Hopefully, enough to shut down the spying and cause enough outrage to force it onto the election issues agenda.
I guess you missed out on the recent news that AT&T was assisting the US Big Brother dept. in spying on ALL of your Internet traffic? Encryption of normal Internet traffic is like a car door lock: it keeps honest people honest. Real thieves will still get inside your car.
If the government wants to look at MY holiday pictures or video of my kid's birthday, they are damn well going to have to work for it. Oh, just for those government types listening, I have implemented MY VERY OWN ENCRYPTION [MVON(TM)] which you are not encouraged to crack... thank you DMCA.
And in case you refuse to read the news, privacy is no longer a given, if you do not create it, you can damn well trust that big brother is violating what privacy you thought you had. To believe that you do not need encryption is the same thing as thinking you can hook a windows computer to the Internet without virus protection and never be infected.
Matt Phillips, spokesman for the UK record industry trade association explains, 'Our internet investigations team, internet service providers and the police are well aware of encryption technology: it's been around for a long time and is commonplace in other areas of internet crime. It should come as no surprise that if people think they can hide illegal activity they will attempt to.'" (emphasis mine)
Why why why why is it automatically assumed that encryption by non-government entities is in actual fact an attempt to cover up illegal activity?
I believe that in general, western societies have set up laws that generally respect the rights of an individual to whisper a secret in the ear of a friend and not be forced to reveal the message to anyone else. If I choose to encrypt email and torrent files, there is no reason that I should be thought guilty of some crime... fscking idiots.
It would entertain me greatly for them to find out that these illegal encrypted downloads were in fact, a Linux distribution.
I don't mind Radiohead's music, but I didn't pay for it either. Neither did I download it yet. It is not correct to say that only 12% of people will pay for music, only that 12% of people that wanted to hear RADIOHEAD's music paid for it. It was an experiment. There were more people going to the site to see what it was about or what the music is like than their are fans that wanted to buy the music IMO. That will significantly skew the statistics.
As more bands do this, we will see what the average price is that people will pay.
I say, it was a success. They made money AND more people now know about them than did before.
Is it just me that wonders why these two are punished, yet the teacher who's classroom computer was rootkited is charged?
In one case we have a clear case of people hacking a school computer system with fraudulent intent. In the other, the victim was penalized.
Is the US criminal justice system geared only to blame humans? If the culprit is a piece of software controlled by someone not in the jurisdiction of the court, are we always going to blame the victim?
In this case, the bad guys got caught, but like people caught for possession of minor amounts of marijuana, the punishment is more harsh than violent crimes.
Yet one more sign that the criminal justice system in the US is totally unbalanced, and needs to be reviewed and reconstructed in view of how the information age has changed the faces of business and commerce. Perhaps we will, in a majority, make the right choices in a year's time.
Are you nucking futs? At what point in the history of MS have they done anything that was relatively useful to the end user if it was not Ultimately useful to MS in isolating end users from choice?
Not because I just want to bash MS, but they earned this one fair and square.
I'm not against a company wanting to innovate and improve their product in order to be the best in class, but that is not what MS is famous for. Their innovations have been purchased (nearly a 100 startups left to buy now) and they do not strive to be best in class with any kind of success (can I mention Vista here?). Even when a workable open standard is proffered up, MS has to do their own version in order to isolate end users from choice (can I get a hell yeah for ODF?). We 0nly have to look at the difference between standards based web browsers and IE to see that MS has no intention of doing anything that is actually good for the world unless it benefits MS (can I mention the bill and melinda foundation and OLPC?). MSIE was, and will continue to be a tool for MS to attempt to remain dominant on the desktop. By virtue of business mentality, it must also always be used to isolate the end user from choice. That is simply how big business in the US of A works.
I believe that it's simple dumb luck that we don't have to buy tires from the manufacturer of the vehicle we own. Sure, there is more to it, but think about how valuable the car analogies really are. Do we really want Nissan or Ford or VW designing the roads? Your driving experience depends on your choice of vehicle, and choice of roads. If we all drive MS cars and truck, using MS tires, on MS designed roads... where will the choice be?
human DNA damage? If this can affect a virus, it can affect the host organism. The only question is how much it would affect a human, and over what time period the effect will be seen.
It is bad, first because as mentioned, that number is low. Second because they violate them because they CAN. IT security is nearly as futile as the war on drugs. Its current incarnation does nothing to reduce the demand, nor does it adequately address the problem.
In the workplace, the employer (owner of the IT infrastructure) has a duty to inform employees how the tool(s) are to be used and what is mis-use. Additionally, the stick and carrot method is not appropriate. If you catch your child using your favorite pair of pliers to hammer a nail to hang a picture, you do not scold them and tell them to not hang pictures. You provide them with a proper hammer and some education on how to use it properly as well as assistance in hanging the picture, along with perhaps a discussion of what is appropriate kind of picture to hang on the wall of their room.
Employers are faced with a new world regarding these IT tools, and to ignore the natural desires of people is to ignore their own security. I fully endorse the policy of allowing some things, such as Internet radio, or checking news sites. If that uses too much bandwidth, funnel such traffic through a proxy to a bandwidth limited connection. Separate your company traffic from benefit traffic. Lock all connections down with security and virus scanning etc. but do not use the stick and carrot... it does NOT work, will not work, cannot work.
On the one hand, the OLPC is open, so let MS port their OS. On the other hand, the chances the MS will port any of the bloated MS products to work well on the OLPC will convince a great many people that MS OS products are not necessarily the thing that they *MUST* have to be relevant in the world of computing.
I would have thought that Windows CE would be the better choice for the OLPC. XP??? What are they thinking?
Sure, it might be possible, but it is a move that is so far in the opposite direction of where MS products have been going you have to ask yourself if it is a joke? Even with their flagship OS, the latest great update has been the kind of success that you wish on your competition. How in the hell are they going to make XP fit on the OLPC? It's performance has not been lauded around the world as THE shining example of how an OS should work on a laptop.
I mean, the OSS community at large finds a problem, and sets about to fix it... from the link:
Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen wrote on 2007-10-25: (permalink)
May i just warn ya all to NOT play the blame-game?
It does sound like it's the fault of the BIOS (and somebody should contact them).
To rescue a hard-drive in distress sounds like something that should have a high-priority (critical?). Not because it's ubuntu's fault or the bios fault. But because Ubuntu can solve this issue _now_. Doesn't sound like it is NOT being dealt with, it just isn't listed everywhere as critical and in the news all over the intarweb tubes.
choke on it... it IS comcast. Your intermittent problems keeping a session open are inarguably unacceptable in view of the wider experience of broadband users in North America. My provider is rock solid in my area. I regularly keep open as many as 6 sessions that do not see lost packets, never mind service unavailable. for example: active SL connection(s), Vonage call, Internet Radio, NNTP session, and active web browsing. None of these suffer a problem. In fact, the only problems I've had were / are on the wireless links. My microwave and wireless router apparently disagree on the topic of which is more powerful.
If we look at what is promised, what is purchased, what is possible, and compare that to what is experienced, it is clear that some ISPs suck, and there is a reason that they suck. Suckiness is not 'normal' or 'average' or acceptable. With the FCC ruling to allow multiple ISP connectivity to many homes, the quality of service should improve to prevent customer churn. My advice is to switch if complaints are not resolved if you can. If not, register a complaint with the authority who gave your ISP broadband monopoly in your area. Document the complaint process and responses. The BBB, I believe, can be consulted in cases where they clearly are not giving you what you paid for.
I have always had trouble with people in the tech industry generally speaking, that refuse to be pedant about their terms and definitions. While it might technically be true that your desktop computer is as powerful as supercomputers of years past, they do not qualify as 'supercomputer' for one reason: The purpose of said computer. Supercomputers are designed to tackle certain problems, or be capable of it. Your desktop machine is designed to be a general purpose machine capable of running.... ughh... Windows. Show me 250,000 dollars worth of hardware designed to run windows and I'll give you the supercomputer on your desktop designation.
The clever use of clustered game controllers does go some way towards 'mini supercomputer' status, but might I suggest we give it another designation? high performance vector computer, high performance RISC computer etc.
When network computing architecture allows for 25000 cells working together across a network to create hitherto unknown FLOPS speeds, perhaps we can come up with other designations... like SkyNet or something.
In the meantime, I leave you with a car analogy: If you invent an engine that would make a Mazda Miata seem to perform like a fuel dragster, you still would not call it a fuel dragster. Even if you can get 650BHP out of your new miata, it will still not work correctly/well on a 1/4 mile drag strip.
Mind you, I'm all for a super high performance RISC machine embedded in my cellphone just the same.
Actually, your thinking is misguided. CALEA requirements are very clearly laid out, and have been available for years. The ONLY reason that they would need to talk with the CIA is to help the CIA help themselves to YOUR conversations.
CALEA rules are enforced for every telecomms carrier. It is NOT new, it is not undefined. To need more clarification is not only suspicious, it smacks of cooperation. The kind of cooperation that Hitler would have been proud of...
When reality sets in. Sure, great that internet tax is held off for a few more years, god knows the cable companies and telcos don't need any help. This is an election year-ish, so taxes will be a big issue soon. The trouble is that the wars of choice for Bush are going to have to be paid for some how. I'm reasonably certain that the Bill Gates of the world are not going to donate their personal fortunes to pay for it, so that means that you and I (if you live in the US) will end up having to pay for it. Any guesses as to how? yes, that's right, in the form of taxes.
We could legalize/regulate/tax the sale of pot... no, that won't happen. We could tax the monetization of religions... no, that won't happen, Xenu won't let it. We could tax gasoline... that will happen We could tax food stuffs... that will happen The list continues with all the stuff that you cannot live without
So be wary of any politician that promises to reduce taxes, even if they manage to not tax internet access.
Truthfully, the only reason that this has worked is that they are still trying to figure out who will give the best backhanders... Telcos or cable companies. If it gets taxed, one of them will make out terribly well as it will open the gates to applying taxes to VoIP and other such services. We'll have monthly bills that even Enron accountants couldn't figure out.
If that sounds cynical, think about it for awhile, the truthiness of it will settle in.
how software patents are supposed to protect innovation? Seems pretty clear that they are only being used to protect big businesses, or as weapons by patent trolls. When the patent system itself became a business (patent trolls) it should have been the wake up call to fix what is obviously broken.
I know that companies are in business to make money, but this kind of heavy handed business practice is not necessary. This type of situation is an example of exactly why people would not be encouraged to start a business. You have to invest a lot of money/resources to ensure that you will not be sued into oblivion just to risk starting up a business. Software patents are WRONG, and the USPTO/patent system is BROKEN.
Yes, we all know that, now what do we do about it?
Several of the 'startups' on the MS buy list are currently known as governments or regulatory bodies across the globe. Who would have thought that? Each day that passes makes me more certain that nuclear war will not end the human race... we will starve to death when the food vending machines finally suffer that one last BSOD.
Man #1 - MS wants to buy 100 startups? Maybe they will buy a couple that can show them how an OS is supposed to work?
Man #2 - Redacted, turned out to actually be a woman
Man #3 - Wasn't this the MS business plan since way back in the early 90s? This is news?
Man #4 - (claiming to be spouse of man #2) Is there really 100 startups worth buying? I thought the venture capitalists were becoming a bit put off on the whole tech thing?
Man #5 - (throws a chair) MS will buy 100 startups if they have to secretly pay those companies to start up... MS will kill the competition in the buying startups sector!!
Man #6 - Will they support iTunes?
Man #7 - (dubiously wearing a/. shirt) Imagine a beawolf cluster of 100 companies........
Man #8 - Shouts "Sorry, have to run and go start a company......"
Seriously, 100 startups? Why not 49? Why not 'as many as it takes'... what is the deal with 100? Microsoft begins with an M, why not 1000 startups?
How could any new 'thingy' for the intarweb tubes work if it aint IpVeeSix compliant? He never mentioned that once in the FA. Obviously they don't have a very good marketing team, so how good could the product actually be? huh? Tell me! It'll probably be okay for public schools and libraries, but not for the REAL intarweb!
1 - Those who would commit violent crimes are also likely to smoke pot, and are in jail for that, prior to committing violent crimes.
2 - Simple explanation of the prison population: more pot smokers than violent criminals, which supports the original story.
3 - More people in jail for possession of a harmless substance means less procreation, naturally leading to less violent criminals.
Several news articles recently support option #1, reflecting on demographics of prison population and demographics of violent criminals. Disclaimer: I am only stating what others have said, not supporting any demographic analysis of any kind.
In support of argument against, some of the largest demographic groups in both the violent crimes area AND high birth rate fit into the pot smoker category also. Increased prosecution of the fallacious "war on drugs" is probably messing with the statistics greatly. While exposure to lead can play some part in the effect, I doubt that it is the major cause.
Play the paper's argument against the backdrop of the Viet Nam war, and I suspect we should be seeing a spike in violent crimes shortly.
I think that much more has to be taken into account. ADD, ADHD, autism are on the rise. Perhaps the causes of these maladies are also to blame for drops in violence? What part does food supply play in all this? Hmm DDT anyone?
My previous post was simply to state that the jails are full of people guilty of crimes not related directly to violence. In the US we seem to like building prisons and filling them with people guilty of minor things, who are otherwise productive members of society... while REAL criminals continue to work in D.C. free of molestation by the law.
Slashdot Mirror
I had thought that this would be clearly understood, but please tell the rest of us exactly what it is that most, or ALL terrorists do in the months before they commit their act of terror. Once we have that list, yes, unimaginably illegal profiling and data mining might net 'possible' terrorist suspects. Remember, you are not a terrorist until you have committed an act of terror. Possession of the Anarchists Cookbook does NOT make you a terrorist, just as owning a copy of Mein Kampf does not make you a Nazi.
Now, where do we stop? Lets look at what McVey liked to eat, and profile people like him. Perhaps we can also profile people that eat the same fscking foods as the DC snipers. Truly, a terrorist does not have to have any international ties, and thus you cannot hope to stop ALL terrorists. The law enforcement's record would be MUCH better than it is if they simply paid attention to the information that they garner with pre-9/11 methods. Oh wait...that sounds like I think they should be logical and use common sense... my bad
Why is the FBI full of fucking idiots?
Sifting through billions of food purchases is not going to find a serious terror threat, not even when combined with any other data. For instance: John Ahmed Richardson has decided to become a terrorist after being recruited by militant persons. First, his flying lessons will not raise suspicions. Second, his explosives license for construction work will not either. Third, the chemical contaminants he will use to cause an eventual shutdown of a power grid are snuck into the country. Fourth, he hates fscking falafel.
So, all I can determine here is that the FBI is only interested in catching the stupid terrorists, or only able to do that, and does so to give itself a good name in the view of the public. Meanwhile actual and real determined terrorists work in secret and will manage to do what they desire without tipping off the FBI, the CIA, or any other law enforcement group. These law enforcement groups had valid actionable information about the 9/11 plot and ignored it. What good will it do them to find someone that likes Turkish food?
They all look like idiots!!
I'd like to disagree with you on a minor point. It is not that we have no desire, it is that we have neither the required technology to inspire the desire nor the perceived value in a bang-for-buck kind of way.
If you could get a lawn care robot that just did it's thing without supervision or assistance, people would snap them up like Roombas. When such exists, they will be hot ticket items. It is the lack of value that is the problem. There are plenty of people that will go out on the bleeding edge for something that appears to have at least intrinsic value. We, in the US, generally don't need computerized friends... we have the intarwebs for god's sake.
My prediction is that the first form of accepted AI in the average American home will be a combination of AI and current home technologies (phone, security, Internet, entertainment etc.) such that the rise of robots comes like the rise of fascism... slowly, and with seeming need for it , but need for only one upgrade at a time.
Predictions such as your vehicle talking to your home PC regarding maintenance requirements etc. is but one such 'needed' function. Anthropomorphic robots will not fill the American xmas wish list, it will be this security add-on, or that multimedia upgrade, or the other appliance upgrade, until they are working as a single system, performing most of the duties of a single human maid/handyman.
may indeed be a distant headlight of a big oncoming train. I can't help but think that if more and more judges are making reasonable decisions, even if not enough such decisions, then the country is waking up from the darkness. Yes, I know, DST doesn't really help, but every little bit of goodness counts. It's not like jurisprudence works like the latest fashion fad, it takes time. Now, we only need for a couple of them to have emails go missing (seems a favorite of the current administration) to show culpability, or some semblance of it. Hopefully, enough to shut down the spying and cause enough outrage to force it onto the election issues agenda.
I guess you missed out on the recent news that AT&T was assisting the US Big Brother dept. in spying on ALL of your Internet traffic? Encryption of normal Internet traffic is like a car door lock: it keeps honest people honest. Real thieves will still get inside your car.
If the government wants to look at MY holiday pictures or video of my kid's birthday, they are damn well going to have to work for it. Oh, just for those government types listening, I have implemented MY VERY OWN ENCRYPTION [MVON(TM)] which you are not encouraged to crack... thank you DMCA.
And in case you refuse to read the news, privacy is no longer a given, if you do not create it, you can damn well trust that big brother is violating what privacy you thought you had. To believe that you do not need encryption is the same thing as thinking you can hook a windows computer to the Internet without virus protection and never be infected.
Why why why why is it automatically assumed that encryption by non-government entities is in actual fact an attempt to cover up illegal activity?
I believe that in general, western societies have set up laws that generally respect the rights of an individual to whisper a secret in the ear of a friend and not be forced to reveal the message to anyone else. If I choose to encrypt email and torrent files, there is no reason that I should be thought guilty of some crime... fscking idiots.
It would entertain me greatly for them to find out that these illegal encrypted downloads were in fact, a Linux distribution.
I don't mind Radiohead's music, but I didn't pay for it either. Neither did I download it yet. It is not correct to say that only 12% of people will pay for music, only that 12% of people that wanted to hear RADIOHEAD's music paid for it. It was an experiment. There were more people going to the site to see what it was about or what the music is like than their are fans that wanted to buy the music IMO. That will significantly skew the statistics.
As more bands do this, we will see what the average price is that people will pay.
I say, it was a success. They made money AND more people now know about them than did before.
Is it just me that wonders why these two are punished, yet the teacher who's classroom computer was rootkited is charged?
In one case we have a clear case of people hacking a school computer system with fraudulent intent. In the other, the victim was penalized.
Is the US criminal justice system geared only to blame humans? If the culprit is a piece of software controlled by someone not in the jurisdiction of the court, are we always going to blame the victim?
In this case, the bad guys got caught, but like people caught for possession of minor amounts of marijuana, the punishment is more harsh than violent crimes.
Yet one more sign that the criminal justice system in the US is totally unbalanced, and needs to be reviewed and reconstructed in view of how the information age has changed the faces of business and commerce. Perhaps we will, in a majority, make the right choices in a year's time.
These three guys are planning a trip to Dubai soon?
Are you nucking futs? At what point in the history of MS have they done anything that was relatively useful to the end user if it was not Ultimately useful to MS in isolating end users from choice?
Not because I just want to bash MS, but they earned this one fair and square.
I'm not against a company wanting to innovate and improve their product in order to be the best in class, but that is not what MS is famous for. Their innovations have been purchased (nearly a 100 startups left to buy now) and they do not strive to be best in class with any kind of success (can I mention Vista here?). Even when a workable open standard is proffered up, MS has to do their own version in order to isolate end users from choice (can I get a hell yeah for ODF?). We 0nly have to look at the difference between standards based web browsers and IE to see that MS has no intention of doing anything that is actually good for the world unless it benefits MS (can I mention the bill and melinda foundation and OLPC?). MSIE was, and will continue to be a tool for MS to attempt to remain dominant on the desktop. By virtue of business mentality, it must also always be used to isolate the end user from choice. That is simply how big business in the US of A works.
I believe that it's simple dumb luck that we don't have to buy tires from the manufacturer of the vehicle we own. Sure, there is more to it, but think about how valuable the car analogies really are. Do we really want Nissan or Ford or VW designing the roads? Your driving experience depends on your choice of vehicle, and choice of roads. If we all drive MS cars and truck, using MS tires, on MS designed roads... where will the choice be?
human DNA damage? If this can affect a virus, it can affect the host organism. The only question is how much it would affect a human, and over what time period the effect will be seen.
It is bad, first because as mentioned, that number is low. Second because they violate them because they CAN. IT security is nearly as futile as the war on drugs. Its current incarnation does nothing to reduce the demand, nor does it adequately address the problem.
In the workplace, the employer (owner of the IT infrastructure) has a duty to inform employees how the tool(s) are to be used and what is mis-use. Additionally, the stick and carrot method is not appropriate. If you catch your child using your favorite pair of pliers to hammer a nail to hang a picture, you do not scold them and tell them to not hang pictures. You provide them with a proper hammer and some education on how to use it properly as well as assistance in hanging the picture, along with perhaps a discussion of what is appropriate kind of picture to hang on the wall of their room.
Employers are faced with a new world regarding these IT tools, and to ignore the natural desires of people is to ignore their own security. I fully endorse the policy of allowing some things, such as Internet radio, or checking news sites. If that uses too much bandwidth, funnel such traffic through a proxy to a bandwidth limited connection. Separate your company traffic from benefit traffic. Lock all connections down with security and virus scanning etc. but do not use the stick and carrot... it does NOT work, will not work, cannot work.
On the one hand, the OLPC is open, so let MS port their OS. On the other hand, the chances the MS will port any of the bloated MS products to work well on the OLPC will convince a great many people that MS OS products are not necessarily the thing that they *MUST* have to be relevant in the world of computing.
I would have thought that Windows CE would be the better choice for the OLPC. XP??? What are they thinking?
Sure, it might be possible, but it is a move that is so far in the opposite direction of where MS products have been going you have to ask yourself if it is a joke? Even with their flagship OS, the latest great update has been the kind of success that you wish on your competition. How in the hell are they going to make XP fit on the OLPC? It's performance has not been lauded around the world as THE shining example of how an OS should work on a laptop.
May i just warn ya all to NOT play the blame-game?
It does sound like it's the fault of the BIOS (and somebody should contact them).
To rescue a hard-drive in distress sounds like something that should have a high-priority (critical?).
Not because it's ubuntu's fault or the bios fault. But because Ubuntu can solve this issue _now_. Doesn't sound like it is NOT being dealt with, it just isn't listed everywhere as critical and in the news all over the intarweb tubes.
choke on it... it IS comcast. Your intermittent problems keeping a session open are inarguably unacceptable in view of the wider experience of broadband users in North America. My provider is rock solid in my area. I regularly keep open as many as 6 sessions that do not see lost packets, never mind service unavailable. for example: active SL connection(s), Vonage call, Internet Radio, NNTP session, and active web browsing. None of these suffer a problem. In fact, the only problems I've had were / are on the wireless links. My microwave and wireless router apparently disagree on the topic of which is more powerful.
If we look at what is promised, what is purchased, what is possible, and compare that to what is experienced, it is clear that some ISPs suck, and there is a reason that they suck. Suckiness is not 'normal' or 'average' or acceptable. With the FCC ruling to allow multiple ISP connectivity to many homes, the quality of service should improve to prevent customer churn. My advice is to switch if complaints are not resolved if you can. If not, register a complaint with the authority who gave your ISP broadband monopoly in your area. Document the complaint process and responses. The BBB, I believe, can be consulted in cases where they clearly are not giving you what you paid for.
I have always had trouble with people in the tech industry generally speaking, that refuse to be pedant about their terms and definitions. While it might technically be true that your desktop computer is as powerful as supercomputers of years past, they do not qualify as 'supercomputer' for one reason: The purpose of said computer. Supercomputers are designed to tackle certain problems, or be capable of it. Your desktop machine is designed to be a general purpose machine capable of running .... ughh... Windows. Show me 250,000 dollars worth of hardware designed to run windows and I'll give you the supercomputer on your desktop designation.
The clever use of clustered game controllers does go some way towards 'mini supercomputer' status, but might I suggest we give it another designation? high performance vector computer, high performance RISC computer etc.
When network computing architecture allows for 25000 cells working together across a network to create hitherto unknown FLOPS speeds, perhaps we can come up with other designations... like SkyNet or something.
In the meantime, I leave you with a car analogy:
If you invent an engine that would make a Mazda Miata seem to perform like a fuel dragster, you still would not call it a fuel dragster. Even if you can get 650BHP out of your new miata, it will still not work correctly/well on a 1/4 mile drag strip.
Mind you, I'm all for a super high performance RISC machine embedded in my cellphone just the same.
Actually, your thinking is misguided. CALEA requirements are very clearly laid out, and have been available for years. The ONLY reason that they would need to talk with the CIA is to help the CIA help themselves to YOUR conversations.
CALEA rules are enforced for every telecomms carrier. It is NOT new, it is not undefined. To need more clarification is not only suspicious, it smacks of cooperation. The kind of cooperation that Hitler would have been proud of...
When reality sets in. Sure, great that internet tax is held off for a few more years, god knows the cable companies and telcos don't need any help. This is an election year-ish, so taxes will be a big issue soon. The trouble is that the wars of choice for Bush are going to have to be paid for some how. I'm reasonably certain that the Bill Gates of the world are not going to donate their personal fortunes to pay for it, so that means that you and I (if you live in the US) will end up having to pay for it. Any guesses as to how? yes, that's right, in the form of taxes.
... Telcos or cable companies. If it gets taxed, one of them will make out terribly well as it will open the gates to applying taxes to VoIP and other such services. We'll have monthly bills that even Enron accountants couldn't figure out.
We could legalize/regulate/tax the sale of pot... no, that won't happen.
We could tax the monetization of religions... no, that won't happen, Xenu won't let it.
We could tax gasoline... that will happen
We could tax food stuffs... that will happen
The list continues with all the stuff that you cannot live without
So be wary of any politician that promises to reduce taxes, even if they manage to not tax internet access.
Truthfully, the only reason that this has worked is that they are still trying to figure out who will give the best backhanders
If that sounds cynical, think about it for awhile, the truthiness of it will settle in.
how software patents are supposed to protect innovation?
Seems pretty clear that they are only being used to protect big businesses, or as weapons by patent trolls. When the patent system itself became a business (patent trolls) it should have been the wake up call to fix what is obviously broken.
I know that companies are in business to make money, but this kind of heavy handed business practice is not necessary. This type of situation is an example of exactly why people would not be encouraged to start a business. You have to invest a lot of money/resources to ensure that you will not be sued into oblivion just to risk starting up a business. Software patents are WRONG, and the USPTO/patent system is BROKEN.
Yes, we all know that, now what do we do about it?
Several of the 'startups' on the MS buy list are currently known as governments or regulatory bodies across the globe. Who would have thought that? Each day that passes makes me more certain that nuclear war will not end the human race... we will starve to death when the food vending machines finally suffer that one last BSOD.
Man #1 - MS wants to buy 100 startups? Maybe they will buy a couple that can show them how an OS is supposed to work?
/. shirt) Imagine a beawolf cluster of 100 companies........
Man #2 - Redacted, turned out to actually be a woman
Man #3 - Wasn't this the MS business plan since way back in the early 90s? This is news?
Man #4 - (claiming to be spouse of man #2) Is there really 100 startups worth buying? I thought the venture capitalists were becoming a bit put off on the whole tech thing?
Man #5 - (throws a chair) MS will buy 100 startups if they have to secretly pay those companies to start up... MS will kill the competition in the buying startups sector!!
Man #6 - Will they support iTunes?
Man #7 - (dubiously wearing a
Man #8 - Shouts "Sorry, have to run and go start a company......"
Seriously, 100 startups? Why not 49? Why not 'as many as it takes'... what is the deal with 100? Microsoft begins with an M, why not 1000 startups?
How could any new 'thingy' for the intarweb tubes work if it aint IpVeeSix compliant? He never mentioned that once in the FA. Obviously they don't have a very good marketing team, so how good could the product actually be? huh? Tell me! It'll probably be okay for public schools and libraries, but not for the REAL intarweb!
The number one threat to America today? BEARS !
There are several ways to think about this:
1 - Those who would commit violent crimes are also likely to smoke pot, and are in jail for that, prior to committing violent crimes.
2 - Simple explanation of the prison population: more pot smokers than violent criminals, which supports the original story.
3 - More people in jail for possession of a harmless substance means less procreation, naturally leading to less violent criminals.
Several news articles recently support option #1, reflecting on demographics of prison population and demographics of violent criminals. Disclaimer: I am only stating what others have said, not supporting any demographic analysis of any kind.
In support of argument against, some of the largest demographic groups in both the violent crimes area AND high birth rate fit into the pot smoker category also. Increased prosecution of the fallacious "war on drugs" is probably messing with the statistics greatly. While exposure to lead can play some part in the effect, I doubt that it is the major cause.
Play the paper's argument against the backdrop of the Viet Nam war, and I suspect we should be seeing a spike in violent crimes shortly.
I think that much more has to be taken into account. ADD, ADHD, autism are on the rise. Perhaps the causes of these maladies are also to blame for drops in violence? What part does food supply play in all this? Hmm DDT anyone?
My previous post was simply to state that the jails are full of people guilty of crimes not related directly to violence. In the US we seem to like building prisons and filling them with people guilty of minor things, who are otherwise productive members of society... while REAL criminals continue to work in D.C. free of molestation by the law.