I don't agree - I think this is a similar situation to negotiating with Terroists/Hostage Takers/Bank Robbers etc - you don't, otherwise it will keep happening. If IBM buy out SCO, then practically every dying tech firm will sue IBM in the hopes of getting bought out. Better to crush them in court - especially if IBM can find a way to countersue and drive SCO into the ground. It will take longer to fight it in court than to buy them out but it will be better for everyone in the long run (except for SCO:-)
Unpleasent? You obviously don't travel or trade between European countries often.
Which I think is one of the reasons a lot of people see few adavantages to joing - barring booze cruises and holidays not that many people in Britain travel to Europe that often. I can see a single currency being advantageous to people on the continent, but less so to those of us stuck out here. As for trade, there are companies that like the fact that multiple currencies are in use - because they are able to make money by moving money around the different currencies. Not only that but even with the Euro a lot of companies still have to deal with the US Dollar and other currencies - once you have to deal with more than one currency I doubt it makes much difference how many you have to deal with.
As a UK citizen who now spends most of his time "in Europe" I must say that my previous (and in retrospect naive) view of England as having an quality, open and honest press has changed considerably over the last five years. It is dishonest and manipulative
Umm, I thought it was kinda obvious that the papers have thier own agendas (ie everybody knows that the Guardian is left wing and the Telegraph right - with attitudes to Europe to match). At least they don't seem to try to hide it very much, which I suppose is at least in someways honest - I remember when I was living in the US papers would claim to be 'unbiased and objective' and most people felt they wern't.
To be honest though, I'm pretty much at the point at giving up on the media in general. Just looking at how often the IT press gets things wrong makes one wonder how often the main press gets it wrong. That and reporting in general seems to be getting less and less about facts and more and more about emotions - I want to know what's going on so I can make up my own mind if something's right or wrong, not some journalist telling me about how terrible something is or how wonderful something is. I think it was last weeks reporting on the Beckhams 'stealing the show' at the MTV music awards that finnaly pushed me over the edge - if they made as big an impact as the UK media would have you believe than why aren't they mentioned at all by the US media?
I think you should get off your Island more often, monetory union is hardly an unpleasent symptom as we experience it. Most Europeans in the Euro zone, that are not confined to their 20 square kilometers around their homes, would not want to go back to the pre-Euro aera.
Most of the ppl I know, just shop around in different contries (e.g. for electronics), because prices are easily compared...
I doubt joing the Euro would give people in the UK the adavantages it gives people on the continent - it's a lot harder for us (at least those who live in Great Britain) to pop over to another euro country to compare prices than it is for some one in say, Belgium (yes, there's the internet - but then I can buy from all over the world).Anyway, I don't think the 'easier to compare prices' argument is particularly strong - the conversion isn't particulary difficult and roughly the same as the conversion rate to the us dollar - so you could just as well turn around and say we should switch to the US Dollar (I would love to see the economic criteria that's suppossed to say when it's ok for the UK to join the Euro be applied to the Dollar - I wonder which one we're closer to).
Next to the fact that the UK is never considered as an integral part of the EU by most other member countries, you can hardly call the UK a team player...
But it's not like we've ever been made to feel like part of the team. France kept us out of the what became the EU (I forget the exact alphabet soup but I think it was what came before the EEC) until the 70s. France and Germany blatently ignore European orders without any appernt repercussions (ie - when British beef was suppossed to be able to go on sale throughout Europe, France and some German states told the EU to go jump and nothing happened). We implement most of the Council directives (no matter how mind bogglelingly stupid) when a lot of other states don't (interestingly, I've heard people in Denmark feel much the same was towards the Euro and Europe in general as people in the UK - and both countries are, or at least were the two highest implementers of EU Council directives). If every state was treated equally and fairly than maybe more people in the UK would think favourably toward Europe - but at the moment it just doesn't seem to be a level playing field. Perhaps the new constitution will change matters, but I doubt it
I think there are a lot of people in the UK who don't see any real benefits to being in the Euro, let alone the EU itself. I think the UK would be better off with the sort of deal the swiss are getting - most of the few benefits people see to being in Europe, with fewer of the drawbacks of being a full member.
The thing is, I can't really consider modern darkroom skills to be in the same archaeic class as, say, brewing or soapmaking.
I would put it in the same class.
While it is certainly one of the youngest of the 'archaic' skills, both in how long the skill has been around and how long the skill has been obsolete, it is most definately something that has, for the most part, been relegated to wierd hobby status. Ok - you might get away with doing your own d+p on "high art" grounds, but for more and more people (both professional and amatuer) developing and processing analogue film isn't the done thing anymore. Yes, there are hold outs who will say 'no matter how many megapixels it doesn't look as good as Velvia' - but those people are getting more and more marginalized every day. Read any photography magazine and you'd be forgiven for thinking that analogue film is mostly for people who are luddites and doing one's own d+p is either for the hardest of the hardcore 'artist' photographers and for the 'geeks' in the photography community (not that they are called geeks but that sentiment is implied).
What about colour film - try processing C-41 colour negative at home (yes it's doable - if you've got a lot of money to spend on equipment).
Are modern darkroom skills as 'elite' as doing your own own dry plates, wet plates, daguerreotypes etc? No, but it's not as elite in the same way as writing code in java isn't as elite as writing assembler - fundamently it's still hacking.
I write code, brew beer, make bread and develop and print my own films (I even made a pinhole camera). I still outsource the vegetables and the soap though. It's not that I don't want to grow my own food, make my own soap, build my own house etc, I just don't have the time (or land as the case with vegetables). Most of my friends are the same and they could all be described as geeks. I think wanting to be as indepedent as possible is just part of the geek personality.
One thing though, couldn't we come up with a better name than 'geek' for ourselves? I hate that term and pretty much every alternative I've heard - nerd, boffin, anorak, etc. Surely there must be a word that isn't a pejorative.
Did they say why they don't use thier own generators? Ok, I suppose they might not like being a bit dependent on the outside world (the generators in the first place, maintenece, having to buy in electrical equpiment etc) but i can't see them making thier pnumatics without some outside help either, unless of course they can make thier own pnumatics in which case they probably could make thier own generators. Perhaps they're afraid of losing the tourist money.
Really? then why is there a New International Version, a New American Standard Version, a New King James Version, to name but a few. There are loads of different bibles, sometimes with distinct differences in content.
Seeing as the bible is a compilation of various texts which have been added or exluded at the whim of various editors over history and seeing as most people will be reading translated versions leaving them at the mercy of various language interpreters I would be somewhat worried if I it to be the considered the sole literary foundation of my belief system.
Any traditional (orthodox) Christian would say "You can't reinterpret Christianity, and still call it Christianity", "You can't pick and choose, and still call it Christianity", "You can't break up the whole, and still call it Christianity".
The sum is more than the parts. If you have your own viewpoint, well, okay, just don't call it by the original name.
So if you can't 'reinterperate' christianity then how come there are so many different brands of it (anglican, methodist, prebyterian etc.)? Seeing as people have been 'reinterpreting' what it means to be christian for about as long as christianity has been around (and even more so since Martin Luther), all with various differences, some minor, some major, I think you can 'break the wholde thing up' and still call it christianity.
In the same vain you can look at linux, *BSD, Solaris etc as Unix - they all have there various differences from one other but they all share very similar 'beliefs', and it's a lot easier when talking about the entire group of them to say unix just as it's easier to say christians as oppossed to 'anglican, methodist and other christ based religions' (especially for Windows using pagans:-)
I've already got a VOD service - homechoice - delivered over ADSL and no way is it going to replace DVD. For a start, it doesn't support widescreen tvs, the compression method they use means the video doesn't look anywhere near as good, they don't have all the extra features you get on dvd and most of all you only get the film for 24 hours. Even if they changed over to mpeg 4 and started supporting widescreen tvs it still wouldn't replace DVD's - at least with a DVD I can play it whenever I want and I don't have to worry about the film not being on thier server in 6 months time. However, homechoice also comes with a selection of tv programmes and music videos that come 'free' with the service, which is nice when the Tivo hasn't got much on it.
What VOD is usefull for is that it helps to eliminate any need for going to video rental shops - the back catalogue on homechoice is cheap and if I really want to see a film right now I can. With that and Blockbuster UK's dvd rental by post I need never darken the doorway of my local video shop again.
I think DVD's will be around for a long time - or at least 5cm shiny discs holding video will be around a long time. My bet is that some 'superDVD' will come out at some point to support High Definition (though the apperent lack of take up of HD in most of the world will probably slow down it's arrival), and after that another super-superDVD for super definition TV when that eventually comes out.
It looks like all they're doing is pushing a web service to make sure that people's names match up with thier addresses, which is something companies already check for (any time you apply for credit they check your name and address against the electoral register). I would assume that Meter Point Asset Numbers come into it because a) only EU citizens can be on the register and b) the electricity company probably know you've moved in before the electoral register know. As an example, one of my friends had trouble buying an oven a couple of days after he had just moved into a new place because he failed the electoral register check (as he wasn't on the electoral regiter where he had just moved into and he had moved about a bit over the previous year)- had Comet been able to verify he was who he was via the the M-PAN (as he had electricty) he might have had an easier time.
I think the only thing new here is that BT are offering a Web Service instead of whatever method companies currently use to do such checks (with a few enhancements to the current system). From an invasion of privacy issue it's no different than what people are currently subjected to, though I would assume that if it becomes easier and cheaper to do than it might happen more frequently.
Now, I have a deep and abiding dislike and mistrust for the News Corporation, so perhaps someone who actually lives somewhere under their monopoly can share their experiences?
To be honest, I actually like Sky's (in the UK) output. Other than the occasional price hike my main grumble is when they display a red button in the top of the screen to remind you that they have an interactive service - which often has little to do with the programme being shown (on Sky One at least, some of the other broadcasters who use the red button do so only when there is interactive content associated with programme). I don't see a need for the red button (we never needed to be reminded that teletext was available and most of the 'interactive services' are little more than a pretty version of teletext) but there's no way of permantly shutting it off.
As for competetion it would be nice, but there was competetion on satellite a long time ago (BSB), but they failed. There was again some hope that digital terrestrial tv (DTT) would provide competetion, but the first lot who tried failed, and now DTT is seen as way for people who don't want sky or cable to get a few extra channels.
All in all, while I think sky could be better in some respects, it's still pretty good and it could have been worse (BSB could have won and due to the technology used, it probably wouldn't have more than 10 channels - even if they switched to digital they still would only have had 10 transponders to play with). Anyway, it's not like Sky have a government mandate to force people to buy a subscription even if they just want to watch free tv (unlike a certain other UK broadcaster).
Here's my reasoning for why the 'radical ideas' never work:
Asking people how they work
Great idea, unfortunatly users never tell you the whole story. The amount of times I've almost finished a project and the users turn around and state some work process that they never thought about (or often told us about the process but gave an entirely different account from what actually happens). You could argue that we're not effective enough at getting requirements but no matter how good you are at times you have to be a mind reader to get requirements out of people. I think instead trying 'turn techies into pyschiatrists' (to paraphrase the article) I think users should go on a course to learn how to analyse there own work process and communicate them better to us - I don't think putting the onus squarely on the technical people is either fair or likely to succeed.
watching them work to make sure they did what they said they were doing or even working with them
But that would require one luxury you rarely get in business - time. While it would cut down at problems at the end of the project, when you're writing the project plan that will seem like 'wasted' time that would be better spent writing the nearly infinite amount of pointless management documentation, the actually usefull technical documentation, the coding and the testing. As far as most managers are concered it's not a pretty usage of time
Asking people what would make there work easier, faster
Again, with most of the users my team have had to deal with, you need to be a mind reader to get all the subtle nuances of what they want (assuming they know what they want - often I've had to deal with users that know they want something but they are not sure what it is they want). Again, I feel training the users in basic analysis (not systems analysis, but the just 'here's how you look at, define and describe a problem')is the best way forward. The only other option seems to be to learn the user's job - which seems a bit unfair (I have to know how to do my job, I have to know how to do the user's job, and the user is getting paid more than me).
Letting them make changes to the user interface and participate in testing
Again, lack of time (but user time, not techie time). Most users I've met hate doing testing and rarely want to get very invovled in the project unless it gets political - ie two different business units who will be using the same software will get activly involved but simply to beat each other over the head with conflicting feature sets and UI.
Sorry for ranting about users, but when I hear user moans about how 'techies don't understand us' and 'we didn't really want this' and 'you think we're all morons' (just like in that article) I start to get angry. Both the users and the sys analysis courses/book always seem blame us for everyting, even when the users are unable to clearly define what the problem is and what they want done about it. Why are we to blame for users' inability to communicate? No, I don't think users are morons, indeed just the opposite - I think the users are intelligent and I get frustrated that otherwise intelligent people seem so ineffective at communicating simple business problems. I think at times it may even be subconciously deliberate - when a user really wants something they seem a lot better at communicating their requirements than when it's something somebody higher up the chain wants. Tk
The UK TV licence, you can't justify it but by gum it works!
Only if you actually like the BBC's output - I don't and I hate having to pay for something I don't watch just so that I can watch thier competitors and not get a 1000 pound fine or go to prison. As for 8 eight channels- only if you've got digital otherwise it's still 2
I want the choice of paying for the BBC and watching it or not paying for the BBC and not watching (yes I know I also get all those wonderfull radio stations as well - again I NEVER listen to them and yet I still have to pay for them).
well it also gets you about a dozen other channels on digital TV, 5 national radio networks and dozens of local radio stations, plus a very good website.
None of which I watch, listen to or surf to. I'm one of those weird people who actually prefers Sky One and Sci-Fi for viewing, never listens to radio (as far as I'm concerned all the radio stations in the UK stink), and I don't need anything BBCi has to offer. At least with sky I get a choice wheter or not to pay for the extra channels or nothing for the free ones - with the BBC I have to 'subscribe' even when I don't use any of thier services.
You are required to own a television license if you use television receiving equipment to watch or record BBC channels. If you don't ever tune into a BBC channel then you don't have to pay at all.
I thought they closed that loophole off - years ago people did this (they had a monitor hooked up to sky box - hence no BBC) but I think they changed the law when they saw people doing this. Even if they haven't closed the loophole I doubt it would be easy to modify my TVs and my digibox to stop recieving the BBC (I almost never watch the BBC and would love to stop paying for it) and just think of the harrassment TVL would give anyway TK
One funny thing is this bit in the m$nbc article: Smith heads a subcommittee on crime, which held hearings that drew endorsements of CSEA from a top Justice Department official and executives from Microsoft and WorldCom.
WorldCom execs? Haven't they themselves caused some economic instabitlty recently?
So, according to the US House of Reps, hackers are a serious threat to economic stabitlity but dodgy accountants are just a minor threat? When has any hacker been able to bring about the levels of economic instabilty brought about companies like WorldCom, Enron and Andersen?
It's the accountants, lawyers and politicians of this world who are the serious threat to the economy - not hackers. Tk
I think you'll find that OS X sits on top of Darwin, which is a port of BSD to the Mach microkernal.
Which means it is a BSD (the same way mkLinux is still Linux even though that runs on a Mach microkernal).
Anyway, Win 9X is related to CP/M - same family, different generation. Not a particualry outrageous statement if you think about it - might even explain why it's not a very good OS.
A 32 bit extension to a 16 bit clone of an 8 bit OS is asking for trouble.
You can find many more apps to run on Linux than you can *BSD. Yes, FreeBSD can run a lot of Linux binaries, but the fact of the matter is that Linux is the most coded-for UNIX out there (although MacOS X will be soon, I'm sure).
But OS X is a member of the BSD family, which by your reckoning would eventually make *BSD the most coded-for UNIX.
Anyway, most apps (especially the free/open ones) seem to run on a variety of unixen, so while it might require some compilation as oppossed to installing an RPM, I doubt it matters much which UNIX variant you choose. More a matter of personal taste and/or available hardware.
This reminded me of a previous slashdot article on mining robots. It won't be too long before these two technologies are combined. Fully autonomous laser wielding robots (and probably quite soon after - fully autonomous laser wielding robot tanks - I can't believe all this technology won't be fed back into weapon systems).
So they have cool technology with a horrid targeted application of that technology.
I think in a few years the best bits of.NET will differentiate themsevelves from the horrible "internet orientatedness" of.NET, the same way COM came out of OLE. Does anyone else remember how 10 or so years ago the world was going to be 'document centric'. That didn't happen, but the best idea's of 'document centric computing' are still with us (like components). Now the world is going to be 'internet centric'. I have an odd sense of deja vu. I can see some good things in.NET that will probably outlast the whole internet craze like the Common Language Runtime thing and using a VM that isn't tied to a specific language (yes there are other languages for the Java VM but there are very few of them).
I can see this happening when MS's marketing department get's wind that 'internet centric' is not going to be the next big thing. They will then go through.NET, look at what is usefull, rename it and start promoting it under the new name. You will still be able to do this internet centric stuff with.NET's successor, but it will be pushed to the background - the same way you can still do document oriented computing with COM - just that nobody does.
Sure you do, until your broadcast and media companies realize the windfall of cash they can get from going pay per view. Greed is not only an American trait (although I'll admit it's more prevelant here)
Digital TV in UK already has the ability to use copy protection - every digibox has a macrovision encoder built in. However it is only turned on for pay per view, nor is likely to be turned on for anything else in the future. How can I be so sure of this? Besides the non commercial BBC, video recording are actually included in the ratings for a programme up to three weeks after it was shown - so the commercial broadcasters still (theoretically) get paid when you watch the video recording. I say theoretically because you would have to be in one of the 4000 homes that actually create the ratings in order to have effect, but if the statistics of ratings hold true then it shouldn't matter. As for fear of Tivo's, well Sky actually have quite a hand in TiVo's UK service - providing the subscriber management and technical backend. Not only that but they are soon to release there own combind Digital Sattelite/TiVo like box.
Actually, its the corporations that now own the government. I and my mechanic friend may do everything in our power to prevent this, but our power doesn't compare with the power of the rich corporations, who can buy the government's power to do whatever they want. We face a pretty bleak future if there is nothing we can do to stand up to a corporate owned state that can do whatever it wants to us. And you guys wonder why we want to keep our guns? It's the only form of power we still maintain. I honestly hope it never comes to a revolution but how much should we take?
So your much hyped (to the point of sacred) Constitution has failed then? Really? There is nothing you can do except hold on to you gun untill revolution version 2 comes? You think the corporations can't afford bigger, better guns than average person on the street? Maybe you should actually try democracy. Thier seems to be quite a few americans on slashdot who don't like what is going, yet do nothing about it (other than complain about it to the rest of the world and/or consider moveing to canada). Organize a political movement. With so many apathetic non voters out thier it shouldn't be that hard to make a difference . So what if it is only niche - as long as it's vocal enough then people will listen - just look at the Green party in Europe. Niche they are, and while they are no where near in control thier voice is often heard and taken into account by the more mainstream groups. They certainly don't get thier own way, but at least they get some concessions in thier favour. An example here would be that while there would still be copy protection you would still have some right to make personal recordings. So no one would be entirely happy - but that's the point of compromise - better for every one to be unhappy than for one side to be happy and one side looking to violence as thier last and only recourse.
According to some DVD mags I've read here in the UK, yes Sony actually do make a multi region player. It's mainly intended for the asian market. Something to do with asia having 3 different regions (Japan in region 2, most of south east asia in 3 and china in 6). So you get funny things like Hong Kong in R3 and China in R6. So the whole region thing becomes a real stumbling block to selling the things - hence more pressure for multi region.
I assume that the asian market would have a preference for asian movies over hollywood ones, so without out the pressure of the hollywood studios, you get less pressure to enforce region coding. I think, to a lesser extent, this why multi-region players are quite common in Europe - the hollywood studios are too US centric to really take notice of what's going on elsewhere. If you have the money-crazed, IP loving hollywood in your own backyard then you should expect a lot of pressure for things like region coding, content 'obliteration' etc. And when hollywood do occasionally notice what's going on in Europe and try to promote these things they usually get a cold reception from European leaders - after all why help US companies exploit your own people. I think if france had it's wishes come through then hollywood would be locked out of Europe completely.
btw - While Sony do have region free players, I think most of the multi region ones sold in Europe are hacked ones
Of course, being region 1 the french would have a hard time finding the disks in the UK, seeing as FACT will come down hard on anyone selling R1 discs in the UK. And I wouldn't be surprised if the EU completely backed the french - even when banning R1 imports from other EU contries. While it does go against the prinicple of a single market, the EU seems to be taking a dim view of parrallel imports. That and the fact that the EU usually bends to france's view, unless germany has a completely different view, means they will get away with as far as europe is concerned. The french are very much do as I say, not as I do when it comes to europe and they get away with it every time. Like the beef issue - what I'd like to know is when the EU is going to ban french beef now that they have BSE. Never - because it's france and they can get away with anything in Europe.
I'm 28, and therefore 3 years too old to know anything, but this 'moral panic' about games is the same 'moral panic' about games that they had over 20 years ago with the atari 2600. If games haven't become part of the 'culture' by now, they probably never will.
Some of you may not like what I'm about say, but I have to say it - look outside of the USA. In the UK, it is very, very common for people to own sony playstations. We rarely hear anything about gaming being morally wrong. It's just something people do.
Ok, another part of the UK's 'culture' is often blammed as being morally wrong when it comes to luring children into violence - namely the violent VHS tape like the Child's Play series. For some reason, which I have never figured out, the video tape, as oppossed to the video game, is the easiest thing to blame when children kill in the UK - as oppossed to the parents/educators etc.
So, what I have to say is that video games (like home video) have been around for more than a generation. Any moral outrage at them is by a small, yet very vocal, community who want to press thier views on the majority (as the prohibitionists did in the 1920s), using Video Games/Home Video/Alcohol etc as a 'demon' to scare people into following thier beliefs.
Like I said, there is nothing new here. As for young people making a revolution - yeah right. All I see of young people is that they are doing the same stuff we did - perhaps black clothing, piercings etc. or even better trousers with wide legs which seems to be in amongst the 'young' at the moment - how many times has this been in and out of fashion? Or the times I've heard badly done covers of 80's songs on MTV:UK (New Music? I don't think so). The young aren't in the middle of a revolution - they're retreading the past. Was I in a revolution when I logged on to a bbs in the late 80's? Was I in a revolution when I tried to look different from my parents (who as boomers, tried to look different from thiers). Was I truley in a revolution when I played with my atari, let alone my nintendo that came after it years later? No more so than my grandparents using the telephone, listening to the radio and wearing the latest fasions of the 1920's.
but if they honestly think that the government has the power to make a significant impact on the price of petrol they are quite mistaken.
Wait a second, the government does have the power make an impact - they could lower the tax on fuel to european levels.
The usual reply to this comment is what about health/education and/or the environment.
For health/education and other public spending the answer is simple - move from stealth taxation over to more fair and balanced levels of income tax. Yes it means I'll bring home less, but I won't have to spend as much. Not only that, but I'll know exactly what I'm paying in tax as oppossed to being taxed without really realizing it.
As for the environment, why the hell are we shooting ourselves in the foot, damaging our economy and hurting our low and middle income families, when the rest of the industrialized world pays lip service to the environment. Why should we in Britain pay so much, when the Americans don't (and they have a lot more, and a lot bigger, cars than we do). If the G7 got together and said we are all going have an equal amount of environment tax, than fair enough, but that is about as likely as the Monster Raving Loony Party forming the next government. Until that day, why should we pay when no one else does? Also, I don't feel that punative taxes are going to work anyway, as there is no viable alternative for most people. Public transport and bicycles are not the panacea that many environmentalists would like us to belive. If the govenment gave tax credit on alternative fueled vehicles (and the fuels that go with them), then people would naturaly switch over time. The government could quicken the pace, nudging both car makers and corporate car fleets over to alternative fuels with either mandatory quotas of such vechicles and/or taxation levels.
As for who to vote for at the next election, well none of them come to mind, unless some of the more ammusing parties are up for election in my constituency. I'm sorry, but untill the more sane parts of the conservative party either regain control or split from the far right morons in charge at the moment, there's just no one I want to vote for. Yes, Labour haven't done that bad - mainly by controlling thier Old Labour instincts, but one wonders how long they'll be able to keep it up as Tony Blair gets weaker and weaker. As for the Liberals, well, the new loony left does not get my vote.
After reading the faq on thier website, I wouldn't trust this, especially with Carnivore -
For one thing, it apparently 'shreds' the message after it has been read. Leaving aside the question of it truly deletes the message from evey machine it is stored on to the point that it could never be recovered, I thought that Carnivore is more a packet sniffer, and would intercept the message as it is being transmitted. Even though it is not using smtp it is still probably not enough to stop carnivore from realizing that data is being sent from a target machine. Yes, the data is encrypted but my second point, and most important in my eyes, is that they give absolutly no information as to how the message is encrypted. They use smoke and mirrors in there faq about 'level of encryption', quote : 'Unfortunately, there is no straightforward answer to this question, because "level" doesn't mean anything in the encryption world. ', instead of dealing with the real issue - that of the algorithm(s) they use. They obviously have some patent issues to deal with, but you would think that after the patent has been applied for they should be able to publicize the algorithms used in order to show that they really are secure. No encryption system should be considered secure for public use unless the algorithm is public.
So, as far as I'm aware from thier faq, SafeMessage is little more than some proprietry email protocol combined with some proprietry encryption protocol(s) that has not faced any public scrutiny into thier actual effectiveness. Maybe I'm wrong, and it's the most secure communication system since crypto was invented, but untill I see proof (and more detailed information from thier website), I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't agree - I think this is a similar situation to negotiating with Terroists/Hostage Takers/Bank Robbers etc - you don't, otherwise it will keep happening. If IBM buy out SCO, then practically every dying tech firm will sue IBM in the hopes of getting bought out. Better to crush them in court - especially if IBM can find a way to countersue and drive SCO into the ground. It will take longer to fight it in court than to buy them out but it will be better for everyone in the long run (except for SCO :-)
Tk
Unpleasent? You obviously don't travel or trade between European countries often.
Which I think is one of the reasons a lot of people see few adavantages to joing - barring booze cruises and holidays not that many people in Britain travel to Europe that often. I can see a single currency being advantageous to people on the continent, but less so to those of us stuck out here. As for trade, there are companies that like the fact that multiple currencies are in use - because they are able to make money by moving money around the different currencies. Not only that but even with the Euro a lot of companies still have to deal with the US Dollar and other currencies - once you have to deal with more than one currency I doubt it makes much difference how many you have to deal with.
As a UK citizen who now spends most of his time "in Europe" I must say that my previous (and in retrospect naive) view of England as having an quality, open and honest press has changed considerably over the last five years. It is dishonest and manipulative
Umm, I thought it was kinda obvious that the papers have thier own agendas (ie everybody knows that the Guardian is left wing and the Telegraph right - with attitudes to Europe to match). At least they don't seem to try to hide it very much, which I suppose is at least in someways honest - I remember when I was living in the US papers would claim to be 'unbiased and objective' and most people felt they wern't.
To be honest though, I'm pretty much at the point at giving up on the media in general. Just looking at how often the IT press gets things wrong makes one wonder how often the main press gets it wrong. That and reporting in general seems to be getting less and less about facts and more and more about emotions - I want to know what's going on so I can make up my own mind if something's right or wrong, not some journalist telling me about how terrible something is or how wonderful something is. I think it was last weeks reporting on the Beckhams 'stealing the show' at the MTV music awards that finnaly pushed me over the edge - if they made as big an impact as the UK media would have you believe than why aren't they mentioned at all by the US media?
I think you should get off your Island more often, monetory union is hardly an unpleasent symptom as we experience it. Most Europeans in the Euro zone, that are not confined to their 20 square kilometers around their homes, would not want to go back to the pre-Euro aera.
Most of the ppl I know, just shop around in different contries (e.g. for electronics), because prices are easily compared...
I doubt joing the Euro would give people in the UK the adavantages it gives people on the continent - it's a lot harder for us (at least those who live in Great Britain) to pop over to another euro country to compare prices than it is for some one in say, Belgium (yes, there's the internet - but then I can buy from all over the world).Anyway, I don't think the 'easier to compare prices' argument is particularly strong - the conversion isn't particulary difficult and roughly the same as the conversion rate to the us dollar - so you could just as well turn around and say we should switch to the US Dollar (I would love to see the economic criteria that's suppossed to say when it's ok for the UK to join the Euro be applied to the Dollar - I wonder which one we're closer to).
Next to the fact that the UK is never considered as an integral part of the EU by most other member countries, you can hardly call the UK a team player...
But it's not like we've ever been made to feel like part of the team. France kept us out of the what became the EU (I forget the exact alphabet soup but I think it was what came before the EEC) until the 70s. France and Germany blatently ignore European orders without any appernt repercussions (ie - when British beef was suppossed to be able to go on sale throughout Europe, France and some German states told the EU to go jump and nothing happened). We implement most of the Council directives (no matter how mind bogglelingly stupid) when a lot of other states don't (interestingly, I've heard people in Denmark feel much the same was towards the Euro and Europe in general as people in the UK - and both countries are, or at least were the two highest implementers of EU Council directives). If every state was treated equally and fairly than maybe more people in the UK would think favourably toward Europe - but at the moment it just doesn't seem to be a level playing field. Perhaps the new constitution will change matters, but I doubt it
I think there are a lot of people in the UK who don't see any real benefits to being in the Euro, let alone the EU itself. I think the UK would be better off with the sort of deal the swiss are getting - most of the few benefits people see to being in Europe, with fewer of the drawbacks of being a full member.
The thing is, I can't really consider modern darkroom skills to be in the same archaeic class as, say, brewing or soapmaking.
I would put it in the same class.
While it is certainly one of the youngest of the 'archaic' skills, both in how long the skill has been around and how long the skill has been obsolete, it is most definately something that has, for the most part, been relegated to wierd hobby status. Ok - you might get away with doing your own d+p on "high art" grounds, but for more and more people (both professional and amatuer) developing and processing analogue film isn't the done thing anymore. Yes, there are hold outs who will say 'no matter how many megapixels it doesn't look as good as Velvia' - but those people are getting more and more marginalized every day. Read any photography magazine and you'd be forgiven for thinking that analogue film is mostly for people who are luddites and doing one's own d+p is either for the hardest of the hardcore 'artist' photographers and for the 'geeks' in the photography community (not that they are called geeks but that sentiment is implied).
What about colour film - try processing C-41 colour negative at home (yes it's doable - if you've got a lot of money to spend on equipment).
Are modern darkroom skills as 'elite' as doing your own own dry plates, wet plates, daguerreotypes etc? No, but it's not as elite in the same way as writing code in java isn't as elite as writing assembler - fundamently it's still hacking.
I write code, brew beer, make bread and develop and print my own films (I even made a pinhole camera). I still outsource the vegetables and the soap though. It's not that I don't want to grow my own food, make my own soap, build my own house etc, I just don't have the time (or land as the case with vegetables). Most of my friends are the same and they could all be described as geeks. I think wanting to be as indepedent as possible is just part of the geek personality.
One thing though, couldn't we come up with a better name than 'geek' for ourselves? I hate that term and pretty much every alternative I've heard - nerd, boffin, anorak, etc. Surely there must be a word that isn't a pejorative.
Tk
Did they say why they don't use thier own generators? Ok, I suppose they might not like being a bit dependent on the outside world (the generators in the first place, maintenece, having to buy in electrical equpiment etc) but i can't see them making thier pnumatics without some outside help either, unless of course they can make thier own pnumatics in which case they probably could make thier own generators. Perhaps they're afraid of losing the tourist money.
Tk
There is still only one Bible
Really? then why is there a New International Version, a New American Standard Version, a New King James Version, to name but a few. There are loads of different bibles, sometimes with distinct differences in content.
Seeing as the bible is a compilation of various texts which have been added or exluded at the whim of various editors over history and seeing as most people will be reading translated versions leaving them at the mercy of various language interpreters I would be somewhat worried if I it to be the considered the sole literary foundation of my belief system.
Tk
Any traditional (orthodox) Christian would say "You can't reinterpret Christianity, and still call it Christianity", "You can't pick and choose, and still call it Christianity", "You can't break up the whole, and still call it Christianity".
:-)
The sum is more than the parts. If you have your own viewpoint, well, okay, just don't call it by the original name.
So if you can't 'reinterperate' christianity then how come there are so many different brands of it (anglican, methodist, prebyterian etc.)? Seeing as people have been 'reinterpreting' what it means to be christian for about as long as christianity has been around (and even more so since Martin Luther), all with various differences, some minor, some major, I think you can 'break the wholde thing up' and still call it christianity.
In the same vain you can look at linux, *BSD, Solaris etc as Unix - they all have there various differences from one other but they all share very similar 'beliefs', and it's a lot easier when talking about the entire group of them to say unix just as it's easier to say christians as oppossed to 'anglican, methodist and other christ based religions' (especially for Windows using pagans
Tk
I've already got a VOD service - homechoice - delivered over ADSL and no way is it going to replace DVD. For a start, it doesn't support widescreen tvs, the compression method they use means the video doesn't look anywhere near as good, they don't have all the extra features you get on dvd and most of all you only get the film for 24 hours. Even if they changed over to mpeg 4 and started supporting widescreen tvs it still wouldn't replace DVD's - at least with a DVD I can play it whenever I want and I don't have to worry about the film not being on thier server in 6 months time. However, homechoice also comes with a selection of tv programmes and music videos that come 'free' with the service, which is nice when the Tivo hasn't got much on it.
What VOD is usefull for is that it helps to eliminate any need for going to video rental shops - the back catalogue on homechoice is cheap and if I really want to see a film right now I can. With that and Blockbuster UK's dvd rental by post I need never darken the doorway of my local video shop again.
I think DVD's will be around for a long time - or at least 5cm shiny discs holding video will be around a long time. My bet is that some 'superDVD' will come out at some point to support High Definition (though the apperent lack of take up of HD in most of the world will probably slow down it's arrival), and after that another super-superDVD for super definition TV when that eventually comes out.
Tk
I found this link on BT's web site http://www.btplc.com/Mediacentre/Agencynewsrelease s/2003/an0327.htm
It looks like all they're doing is pushing a web service to make sure that people's names match up with thier addresses, which is something companies already check for (any time you apply for credit they check your name and address against the electoral register). I would assume that Meter Point Asset Numbers come into it because a) only EU citizens can be on the register and b) the electricity company probably know you've moved in before the electoral register know. As an example, one of my friends had trouble buying an oven a couple of days after he had just moved into a new place because he failed the electoral register check (as he wasn't on the electoral regiter where he had just moved into and he had moved about a bit over the previous year)- had Comet been able to verify he was who he was via the the M-PAN (as he had electricty) he might have had an easier time.
I think the only thing new here is that BT are offering a Web Service instead of whatever method companies currently use to do such checks (with a few enhancements to the current system). From an invasion of privacy issue it's no different than what people are currently subjected to, though I would assume that if it becomes easier and cheaper to do than it might happen more frequently.
Tk
Now, I have a deep and abiding dislike and mistrust for the News Corporation, so perhaps someone who actually lives somewhere under their monopoly can share their experiences?
To be honest, I actually like Sky's (in the UK) output. Other than the occasional price hike my main grumble is when they display a red button in the top of the screen to remind you that they have an interactive service - which often has little to do with the programme being shown (on Sky One at least, some of the other broadcasters who use the red button do so only when there is interactive content associated with programme). I don't see a need for the red button (we never needed to be reminded that teletext was available and most of the 'interactive services' are little more than a pretty version of teletext) but there's no way of permantly shutting it off.
As for competetion it would be nice, but there was competetion on satellite a long time ago (BSB), but they failed. There was again some hope that digital terrestrial tv (DTT) would provide competetion, but the first lot who tried failed, and now DTT is seen as way for people who don't want sky or cable to get a few extra channels.
All in all, while I think sky could be better in some respects, it's still pretty good and it could have been worse (BSB could have won and due to the technology used, it probably wouldn't have more than 10 channels - even if they switched to digital they still would only have had 10 transponders to play with). Anyway, it's not like Sky have a government mandate to force people to buy a subscription even if they just want to watch free tv (unlike a certain other UK broadcaster).
Tk
Here's my reasoning for why the 'radical ideas' never work:
Asking people how they work
Great idea, unfortunatly users never tell you the whole story. The amount of times I've almost finished a project and the users turn around and state some work process that they never thought about (or often told us about the process but gave an entirely different account from what actually happens). You could argue that we're not effective enough at getting requirements but no matter how good you are at times you have to be a mind reader to get requirements out of people. I think instead trying 'turn techies into pyschiatrists' (to paraphrase the article) I think users should go on a course to learn how to analyse there own work process and communicate them better to us - I don't think putting the onus squarely on the technical people is either fair or likely to succeed.
watching them work to make sure they did what they said they were doing or even working with them
But that would require one luxury you rarely get in business - time. While it would cut down at problems at the end of the project, when you're writing the project plan that will seem like 'wasted' time that would be better spent writing the nearly infinite amount of pointless management documentation, the actually usefull technical documentation, the coding and the testing. As far as most managers are concered it's not a pretty usage of time
Asking people what would make there work easier, faster
Again, with most of the users my team have had to deal with, you need to be a mind reader to get all the subtle nuances of what they want (assuming they know what they want - often I've had to deal with users that know they want something but they are not sure what it is they want). Again, I feel training the users in basic analysis (not systems analysis, but the just 'here's how you look at, define and describe a problem')is the best way forward. The only other option seems to be to learn the user's job - which seems a bit unfair (I have to know how to do my job, I have to know how to do the user's job, and the user is getting paid more than me).
Letting them make changes to the user interface and participate in testing
Again, lack of time (but user time, not techie time). Most users I've met hate doing testing and rarely want to get very invovled in the project unless it gets political - ie two different business units who will be using the same software will get activly involved but simply to beat each other over the head with conflicting feature sets and UI.
Sorry for ranting about users, but when I hear user moans about how 'techies don't understand us' and 'we didn't really want this' and 'you think we're all morons' (just like in that article) I start to get angry. Both the users and the sys analysis courses/book always seem blame us for everyting, even when the users are unable to clearly define what the problem is and what they want done about it. Why are we to blame for users' inability to communicate? No, I don't think users are morons, indeed just the opposite - I think the users are intelligent and I get frustrated that otherwise intelligent people seem so ineffective at communicating simple business problems. I think at times it may even be subconciously deliberate - when a user really wants something they seem a lot better at communicating their requirements than when it's something somebody higher up the chain wants.
Tk
The UK TV licence, you can't justify it but by gum it works!
Only if you actually like the BBC's output - I don't and I hate having to pay for something I don't watch just so that I can watch thier competitors and not get a 1000 pound fine or go to prison. As for 8 eight channels- only if you've got digital otherwise it's still 2
I want the choice of paying for the BBC and watching it or not paying for the BBC and not watching (yes I know I also get all those wonderfull radio stations as well - again I NEVER listen to them and yet I still have to pay for them).
well it also gets you about a dozen other channels on digital TV, 5 national radio networks and dozens of local radio stations, plus a very good website.
None of which I watch, listen to or surf to. I'm one of those weird people who actually prefers Sky One and Sci-Fi for viewing, never listens to radio (as far as I'm concerned all the radio stations in the UK stink), and I don't need anything BBCi has to offer. At least with sky I get a choice wheter or not to pay for the extra channels or nothing for the free ones - with the BBC I have to 'subscribe' even when I don't use any of thier services.
You are required to own a television license if you use television receiving equipment to watch or record BBC channels. If you don't ever tune into a BBC channel then you don't have to pay at all.
I thought they closed that loophole off - years ago people did this (they had a monitor hooked up to sky box - hence no BBC) but I think they changed the law when they saw people doing this. Even if they haven't closed the loophole I doubt it would be easy to modify my TVs and my digibox to stop recieving the BBC (I almost never watch the BBC and would love to stop paying for it) and just think of the harrassment TVL would give anyway
TK
One funny thing is this bit in the m$nbc article:
Smith heads a subcommittee on crime, which held hearings that drew endorsements of CSEA from a top Justice Department official and executives from Microsoft and WorldCom.
WorldCom execs? Haven't they themselves caused some economic instabitlty recently?
So, according to the US House of Reps, hackers are a serious threat to economic stabitlity but dodgy accountants are just a minor threat? When has any hacker been able to bring about the levels of economic instabilty brought about companies like WorldCom, Enron and Andersen?
It's the accountants, lawyers and politicians of this world who are the serious threat to the economy - not hackers.
Tk
I think you'll find that OS X sits on top of Darwin, which is a port of BSD to the Mach microkernal.
Which means it is a BSD (the same way mkLinux is still Linux even though that runs on a Mach microkernal).
Anyway, Win 9X is related to CP/M - same family, different generation. Not a particualry outrageous statement if you think about it - might even explain why it's not a very good OS.
A 32 bit extension to a 16 bit clone of an 8 bit OS is asking for trouble.
Tk
You can find many more apps to run on Linux than you can *BSD. Yes, FreeBSD can run a lot of Linux binaries, but the fact of the matter is that Linux is the most coded-for UNIX out there (although MacOS X will be soon, I'm sure).
But OS X is a member of the BSD family, which by your reckoning would eventually make *BSD the most coded-for UNIX.
Anyway, most apps (especially the free/open ones) seem to run on a variety of unixen, so while it might require some compilation as oppossed to installing an RPM, I doubt it matters much which UNIX variant you choose. More a matter of personal taste and/or available hardware.
Tk
This reminded me of a previous slashdot article on mining robots. It won't be too long before these two technologies are combined. Fully autonomous laser wielding robots (and probably quite soon after - fully autonomous laser wielding robot tanks - I can't believe all this technology won't be fed back into weapon systems).
So they have cool technology with a horrid targeted application of that technology.
I think in a few years the best bits of .NET will differentiate themsevelves from the horrible "internet orientatedness" of .NET, the same way COM came out of OLE. Does anyone else remember how 10 or so years ago the world was going to be 'document centric'. That didn't happen, but the best idea's of 'document centric computing' are still with us (like components). Now the world is going to be 'internet centric'. I have an odd sense of deja vu. I can see some good things in .NET that will probably outlast the whole internet craze like the Common Language Runtime thing and using a VM that isn't tied to a specific language (yes there are other languages for the Java VM but there are very few of them).
I can see this happening when MS's marketing department get's wind that 'internet centric' is not going to be the next big thing. They will then go through .NET, look at what is usefull, rename it and start promoting it under the new name. You will still be able to do this internet centric stuff with .NET's successor, but it will be pushed to the background - the same way you can still do document oriented computing with COM - just that nobody does.
Sure you do, until your broadcast and media companies realize the windfall of cash they can get from going pay per view. Greed is not only an American trait (although I'll admit it's more prevelant here)
Digital TV in UK already has the ability to use copy protection - every digibox has a macrovision encoder built in. However it is only turned on for pay per view, nor is likely to be turned on for anything else in the future. How can I be so sure of this? Besides the non commercial BBC, video recording are actually included in the ratings for a programme up to three weeks after it was shown - so the commercial broadcasters still (theoretically) get paid when you watch the video recording. I say theoretically because you would have to be in one of the 4000 homes that actually create the ratings in order to have effect, but if the statistics of ratings hold true then it shouldn't matter. As for fear of Tivo's, well Sky actually have quite a hand in TiVo's UK service - providing the subscriber management and technical backend. Not only that but they are soon to release there own combind Digital Sattelite/TiVo like box.
Actually, its the corporations that now own the government. I and my mechanic friend may do everything in our power to prevent this, but our power doesn't compare with the power of the rich corporations, who can buy the government's power to do whatever they want. We face a pretty bleak future if there is nothing we can do to stand up to a corporate owned state that can do whatever it wants to us. And you guys wonder why we want to keep our guns? It's the only form of power we still maintain. I honestly hope it never comes to a revolution but how much should we take?
So your much hyped (to the point of sacred) Constitution has failed then? Really? There is nothing you can do except hold on to you gun untill revolution version 2 comes? You think the corporations can't afford bigger, better guns than average person on the street? Maybe you should actually try democracy. Thier seems to be quite a few americans on slashdot who don't like what is going, yet do nothing about it (other than complain about it to the rest of the world and/or consider moveing to canada). Organize a political movement. With so many apathetic non voters out thier it shouldn't be that hard to make a difference . So what if it is only niche - as long as it's vocal enough then people will listen - just look at the Green party in Europe. Niche they are, and while they are no where near in control thier voice is often heard and taken into account by the more mainstream groups. They certainly don't get thier own way, but at least they get some concessions in thier favour. An example here would be that while there would still be copy protection you would still have some right to make personal recordings. So no one would be entirely happy - but that's the point of compromise - better for every one to be unhappy than for one side to be happy and one side looking to violence as thier last and only recourse.
According to some DVD mags I've read here in the UK, yes Sony actually do make a multi region player. It's mainly intended for the asian market. Something to do with asia having 3 different regions (Japan in region 2, most of south east asia in 3 and china in 6). So you get funny things like Hong Kong in R3 and China in R6. So the whole region thing becomes a real stumbling block to selling the things - hence more pressure for multi region.
I assume that the asian market would have a preference for asian movies over hollywood ones, so without out the pressure of the hollywood studios, you get less pressure to enforce region coding. I think, to a lesser extent, this why multi-region players are quite common in Europe - the hollywood studios are too US centric to really take notice of what's going on elsewhere. If you have the money-crazed, IP loving hollywood in your own backyard then you should expect a lot of pressure for things like region coding, content 'obliteration' etc. And when hollywood do occasionally notice what's going on in Europe and try to promote these things they usually get a cold reception from European leaders - after all why help US companies exploit your own people. I think if france had it's wishes come through then hollywood would be locked out of Europe completely.
btw - While Sony do have region free players, I think most of the multi region ones sold in Europe are hacked ones
TKOf course, being region 1 the french would have a hard time finding the disks in the UK, seeing as FACT will come down hard on anyone selling R1 discs in the UK. And I wouldn't be surprised if the EU completely backed the french - even when banning R1 imports from other EU contries. While it does go against the prinicple of a single market, the EU seems to be taking a dim view of parrallel imports. That and the fact that the EU usually bends to france's view, unless germany has a completely different view, means they will get away with as far as europe is concerned. The french are very much do as I say, not as I do when it comes to europe and they get away with it every time. Like the beef issue - what I'd like to know is when the EU is going to ban french beef now that they have BSE. Never - because it's france and they can get away with anything in Europe.
I'm 28, and therefore 3 years too old to know anything, but this 'moral panic' about games is the same 'moral panic' about games that they had over 20 years ago with the atari 2600. If games haven't become part of the 'culture' by now, they probably never will.
Some of you may not like what I'm about say, but I have to say it - look outside of the USA. In the UK, it is very, very common for people to own sony playstations. We rarely hear anything about gaming being morally wrong. It's just something people do.
Ok, another part of the UK's 'culture' is often blammed as being morally wrong when it comes to luring children into violence - namely the violent VHS tape like the Child's Play series. For some reason, which I have never figured out, the video tape, as oppossed to the video game, is the easiest thing to blame when children kill in the UK - as oppossed to the parents/educators etc.
So, what I have to say is that video games (like home video) have been around for more than a generation. Any moral outrage at them is by a small, yet very vocal, community who want to press thier views on the majority (as the prohibitionists did in the 1920s), using Video Games/Home Video/Alcohol etc as a 'demon' to scare people into following thier beliefs.
Like I said, there is nothing new here. As for young people making a revolution - yeah right. All I see of young people is that they are doing the same stuff we did - perhaps black clothing, piercings etc. or even better trousers with wide legs which seems to be in amongst the 'young' at the moment - how many times has this been in and out of fashion? Or the times I've heard badly done covers of 80's songs on MTV:UK (New Music? I don't think so). The young aren't in the middle of a revolution - they're retreading the past. Was I in a revolution when I logged on to a bbs in the late 80's? Was I in a revolution when I tried to look different from my parents (who as boomers, tried to look different from thiers). Was I truley in a revolution when I played with my atari, let alone my nintendo that came after it years later? No more so than my grandparents using the telephone, listening to the radio and wearing the latest fasions of the 1920's.
TK
but if they honestly think that the government has the power to make a significant impact on the price of petrol they are quite mistaken.
Wait a second, the government does have the power make an impact - they could lower the tax on fuel to european levels.
The usual reply to this comment is what about health/education and/or the environment.
For health/education and other public spending the answer is simple - move from stealth taxation over to more fair and balanced levels of income tax. Yes it means I'll bring home less, but I won't have to spend as much. Not only that, but I'll know exactly what I'm paying in tax as oppossed to being taxed without really realizing it.
As for the environment, why the hell are we shooting ourselves in the foot, damaging our economy and hurting our low and middle income families, when the rest of the industrialized world pays lip service to the environment. Why should we in Britain pay so much, when the Americans don't (and they have a lot more, and a lot bigger, cars than we do). If the G7 got together and said we are all going have an equal amount of environment tax, than fair enough, but that is about as likely as the Monster Raving Loony Party forming the next government. Until that day, why should we pay when no one else does? Also, I don't feel that punative taxes are going to work anyway, as there is no viable alternative for most people. Public transport and bicycles are not the panacea that many environmentalists would like us to belive. If the govenment gave tax credit on alternative fueled vehicles (and the fuels that go with them), then people would naturaly switch over time. The government could quicken the pace, nudging both car makers and corporate car fleets over to alternative fuels with either mandatory quotas of such vechicles and/or taxation levels.
As for who to vote for at the next election, well none of them come to mind, unless some of the more ammusing parties are up for election in my constituency. I'm sorry, but untill the more sane parts of the conservative party either regain control or split from the far right morons in charge at the moment, there's just no one I want to vote for. Yes, Labour haven't done that bad - mainly by controlling thier Old Labour instincts, but one wonders how long they'll be able to keep it up as Tony Blair gets weaker and weaker. As for the Liberals, well, the new loony left does not get my vote.
TK
After reading the faq on thier website, I wouldn't trust this, especially with Carnivore -
For one thing, it apparently 'shreds' the message after it has been read. Leaving aside the question of it truly deletes the message from evey machine it is stored on to the point that it could never be recovered, I thought that Carnivore is more a packet sniffer, and would intercept the message as it is being transmitted. Even though it is not using smtp it is still probably not enough to stop carnivore from realizing that data is being sent from a target machine. Yes, the data is encrypted but my second point, and most important in my eyes, is that they give absolutly no information as to how the message is encrypted. They use smoke and mirrors in there faq about 'level of encryption', quote : 'Unfortunately, there is no straightforward answer to this question, because "level" doesn't mean anything in the encryption world. ', instead of dealing with the real issue - that of the algorithm(s) they use. They obviously have some patent issues to deal with, but you would think that after the patent has been applied for they should be able to publicize the algorithms used in order to show that they really are secure. No encryption system should be considered secure for public use unless the algorithm is public.
So, as far as I'm aware from thier faq, SafeMessage is little more than some proprietry email protocol combined with some proprietry encryption protocol(s) that has not faced any public scrutiny into thier actual effectiveness. Maybe I'm wrong, and it's the most secure communication system since crypto was invented, but untill I see proof (and more detailed information from thier website), I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
TK