Software people have been getting off too easy for too long. It is clear that the world of business and technology has become highly software dependent. But only in a very few cases does the software designer get stuck with real liability for screwing up. Usually that is part of some larger product that failed, like an air bag that doesn't trigger or a heart monitor that doesn't alarm. But in applications that are almost purely software, like say database security, the softwre guys can get away with saying, "I tried, I failed, too bad".
I am a real no kidding licensed engineer. I only get to work at two levels, one where you ask for a free opinion and you get what you paid for, and the other, where I put a stamp and signature on it and say "its good". Once I do that, I have liability for the life of that item. And my only defense is that the usage (and failure) was so wildly unforseable that I could not reasonably be expected to predict it. And the only way to prove that is having my army of experts challenge the plaintiffs army of experts in front of a jury that can barely do algebra. I can't just say the users weren't supposed to do something stupid. I can't go around administering intelligence tests at the point of sale. OSHA, UL, NEC, etc. all exist for a reason. At that level, liability is a real consideration to be taken seriously.
Software designers get off easy and they don't want the noose around their necks like the hardware guys have. They whine and cry and tell us it is hard to get it right. Yeah, it is, but other industries have done it before. Step up to the plate and get with the rest of us. Say you will stand behind the work you've done, and then maybe you'll get some respect on all those other burning issues you have with society.
I've installed the Stumble Upon extension for Firefox, and it has worked out to be a great way to find new and different and GOOD things on the web. Lots of eyes with lots of opinions slowly browsing the Web, giving everything thumbs up or thumbs down. If a site floats to the top, it has some real value worth seeing.
"The fact that this contest isn't run in a more open way makes it seems like less of a "contest" and more of a "do our research for us!" kind of thing."
Well, yes.
This ISN'T about open technologies, this is about building up to a defense (warmaking) capability.
On the one hand, you have to release a tiny bit of information, just so all the competitors have the same basic assumptions and stay in the same universe of solutions. On the other hand, you don't want to constrain the competitors too much with regard to what to pick and choose from.
And, on the Gripping Hand (or end effector as they say in the trade), you don't want to reveal too much of what you do and don't know to be possible. It is one thing to say you researched Quantum Computing. It is another to say you now know it can't handle more than 16 bit precision faster than 25MHz. You may now realize Quantum is a waste of time, but there is no reason to let your adversaries know that too. Let them waste their time and effort and money, while you move on to more profitable things. Or conversely and contrariwise, maybe you have screwed up and they will make the breakthrough you missed (think German Heavy water experiments). Again, let them work while you watch.
Publishing results is counterproductive in the most important race DARPA cares about, the arms race. They only let you know what you need to know.
We just recently buried one of my uncles, a WW2 vet. He got the flag covered casket, but no military escort at all. The funeral directors had to do the flag folding honors, and my father, 80 years old and a WW2 and Korea vet himself, had to step in and present the flag to the family. He did it as well as he could, considering it has been over 40 years since he had to do it last. "On behalf of the President, the Army,..."
The shortage of real military honor guards is real, but it is clear to me that the former members of the military take the responsibility seriously. I've seen the Taps bugles (funeral of a cousin, former USA Colonel). I'm not happy with them, but it is also clear we can't just produce bugle players out of thin air.
You miss the point. If the anti-smokers outnumbered the smokers 10 to 1 and eradicated all mention of harmlessness in the article, would that make it more neutral? No, it would just be iased in another way. Neutrality is NOT A FUNCTION OF NUMBERS. it isn't about majority rules. It is a function of evaluating the content and deciding all sides have been considered. Uh oh, that requires Judgement. Worse, it requires Good Judgement on the part of many people with opposing interests, motivations and viewpoints.
I suspect one of the reasons Wikipedia has grown so quickly with the high quality it has is the ability of some of the brighter editors to trim controversial content out of most articles and create potboiler articles of controversy for them to fight over.
"As long as you listen to BOTH sides of the propaganda machine."
That should be good enough, but rarely is.
This isn't like some great big balance scale, where everything averages out to zero. This is s asituation of where everyone pulls in their own directiuon and the result is the Sum of their Ignornance. If it happens to land on a neutral spot, that would be great. But it is hardly guaranteed.
Like they say, "4 out of 5 doctors* agree, cigarettes don't cause cancer".
What about the need for unambiguous, authenticated, recognized proof of identity? Certainly we have long since entered the age of digital sigantures. Short of being able to provide a thumbprint, blood sample, photo, and voiceprint convieniently to anyone, a compact and secure card/ID would be the next best answer.
We can't just wish ID theft away, and the current methods of "protection" are little more than that.
"I seriously don't understand how people can claim to not be able to tell the difference."
Two reasons.
First, because most people's eyes just can't pick up the difference. Good eyesight (about 20/20) is only good to about 2-3 minutes of arc. Most folks can pick out individual objects somewhat smaller than that (1 minute, like when shooting targets), but for complex scenes, they just can't pick out details. For a 25 inch SD TV that means sitting about 53 inches or closer to see "all" the resolution. For a HD TV you would have to sit proportionately closer. Most people don't sit less than 4 feet from a 25 inch screen (or 8 feet from a 50 inch screen). They may notice the HD image is "crisper" in some way, but they are unlikely to pick out Resolution as the reason.
Second, NTSC broadcasts (or cable) are rarely up to even the standard it could be, and that is what people are used to. Most people are happy to get 240 real lines out of their SD TV (good old VHS tape). When DVD hands them a 350+ image they immediately see the improvement, at ordinary viewing distances with ordinary eyes. The improvement is obvious, and worth it. But HD is just going to take them past what they can perceive. And the question becomes, "why pay for it if I can't see it?"
Yes sir, we confirm the order of Zonkers will be shipping. Seeing your triple emphasis in your sig, we will ship three cartons by overnight delivery. Billing will be by separate message.
Or is Stallman just a brilliant guy with some signs of lunacy? I'm pleased as hell that he has led the charge for Free Software and cracked the gates of proprietary software wide open. The only other significant movement I ever saw in that area was from the US Government itself, and they go co-opted pretty fast.
But RMS seems to not be "with it" when it comes to actually closing the deal on the revolution. Computers taht really are by the people, for the people. Cryptic jibberish is OK, as long as it is Free cryptic jibberish.
Or maybe I'm just missing something. Its OK, it happens a lot.
My worksite already filters ActiveX. It doesn't make it to the desktop. We just get little blank spaces with "removed due to policy ####" on our screen.
I'm happy to see it gone, but you know what? It is really educational to see how many people have gone completely over to the ActiveX camp. For example, Pontiac.com is literally a total blank screen to me. And several others are effectively FUBAR without ActiveX. To the site builiders: No fallback plan for your web presence? Really bad marketing, Guys.
"...They would have to add skids, a parachute, or something else..."
Not really.
All you need is enough parachute to slow you down to a survivable impact speed. Maybe some control surface to level you out and aerobrakes to slow you down before the chute deploys. Not even a wing really. Just enough control to send it arcing up again, and enough brake to keep the second descent slow, like a shuttlecock. Military air-to-air missiles commonly have very small control surfaces, even though they travel at Mach 2.5 Sidewinder.
The $550,000 was such a crock for CBS. In effect FCC was saying, "we are fining you for broadcasting something you had no idea was going to happen". Or to put it another way, they are telling them to never broadcast live, always go through the censor first. It was just another step down the road to pre-digested, centrally planned and filtered entertainment for the masses. Nothing new or unusual or unexpected can be tolerated. Yes I know we are really already there, but that fine was the death knell to even semi-live performances.
Let us contemplate Pat Boone's fine musical repetoire, shall we?
OK, it doesn't bother me, but there are people that want ZERO sexual content on TV. They are co-owners fo the airwaves too, same as all the rest of us, and they have to be accomodated in some way I suppose. Equal treatment under law and all that. It is a big Bell Curve out there, and *someone* has to sit at the other end of the tolerance scale.
On the other hand, it bothers the heck out of me that a government agency is deciding how much content is enough, when we can see it, and who is allowed to see it. They are "only" doing it in retrospect, which is better than a prior restraint censorship board, but they are still making the judgement. Which just tramples the crap out of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Not that anyone cares anymore. If we don't stop the implied teenage orgies on CBS, the terrorists will win!
There is a tech fix for this problem. Just embed a packet sniffer in the next software update to prevent traffic from coming or going to the Vyatta or XORP sites. No software, no web presence, no problem. Closed source, so who's to know? Advantage: Cisco.
"Msuic producers have the right to set whatever price they want. You don't have the right to just take something because you can't get it at a price you want"
They have a right to be pirated too, but I don't think they enjoy that one nearly so much as the right to set prices. You have a right to leave all your worldly possessions unguarded and open to the public. But you'd be a fool to expect them to stay there overnight. Piracy isn't about their rights, it is about economics, as you say. The music and movie companies could put the pirates out of business tomorrow. Just make a legitimate copy cheap enough for the market to shift in their favor. The same market that encourages alternate acquisition (piracy) will encourage legitimacy as soon as they price themselves back into it. They (and you) can't cry "Free Market" one moment and expect people to line up for a monopoly on the other.
I saw he put a grounding line on the thing, and a ground rod. But Something that tall and close to an inhabited structure should really have a heavier line that goes right to the top. Lightning will fry that #6 conductor pretty fast, and then where will it want to run? Oh, by the way, he has thoughtfully provided a fortuitous conductor that leads directly into his computer! Two words, " lightning arrestor "
And I wasn't too thrilled with his weld quality either. Looks like it was showing rust in the picture. And the bottom plate looked like it would hold water, not shed it. Overall, I'm not sure I'd want it next to my home.
Copyright isn't the problem. Copyright is what allows creative people to believe thier stuff won't get pirated as soon as it is exposed to the public. If you think DRM and licensing is a nightmare now, think what it would be like if there were no legal framework for ti to work within. Content owners could and would demand any kind of onerous restrictions to be sure they didn't get reamed by their own customers.
The problem (among others) is high price. By demanding high prices in the face of easy alternatives, copyright owners are encouraging piracy. Most folks would be happy to get a legitimate copy of something, and therby help the creator, if the price was "fair". You never see anyone go to a library and copy a whole book, even though it would be marginally cheaper than buying the same book at some local store. And the reason is the margin is so low that the benefit of a properly bound book is worth the extra few dollars. DVD and CD manufacturers need to take a lesson.
By the way, ever notice that the retail price of a CD and of a DVD are about the same? We know the music CD has far less data on it, and costs less to produce at the studio to stamping plant stages. Even if unit sales of each are comparable, the CD should be cheaper, probably by a factor of 10 or more (CD studio cost... $1M , DVD studio cost... $30M). Music people have no one but themselves to blame for piracy. It is just payback for the gouging they do on a regular basis, even at WalMart.
"When did Snorting a remote network become illegal?"
Just last year, where have you been? The War on Drugs is never ending. Congress will stop at nothing to save you from yourself, even if you are trying to suck a ground up motherboard into your nose.
Wow! I thought I was having deja-vu, but I almost never read PC Mag online. But I remembered that DRM workaround so clearly as I was reading it. I just figured this day was harder than I thought. Or that/. had published another dupe. Or maybe both are true.
Slashdot Mirror
He's been at the business 30+ years. He's a billionaire. He has a familily. Let the man retire in peace!
I am a real no kidding licensed engineer. I only get to work at two levels, one where you ask for a free opinion and you get what you paid for, and the other, where I put a stamp and signature on it and say "its good". Once I do that, I have liability for the life of that item. And my only defense is that the usage (and failure) was so wildly unforseable that I could not reasonably be expected to predict it. And the only way to prove that is having my army of experts challenge the plaintiffs army of experts in front of a jury that can barely do algebra. I can't just say the users weren't supposed to do something stupid. I can't go around administering intelligence tests at the point of sale. OSHA, UL, NEC, etc. all exist for a reason. At that level, liability is a real consideration to be taken seriously.
Software designers get off easy and they don't want the noose around their necks like the hardware guys have. They whine and cry and tell us it is hard to get it right. Yeah, it is, but other industries have done it before. Step up to the plate and get with the rest of us. Say you will stand behind the work you've done, and then maybe you'll get some respect on all those other burning issues you have with society.
I've installed the Stumble Upon extension for Firefox, and it has worked out to be a great way to find new and different and GOOD things on the web. Lots of eyes with lots of opinions slowly browsing the Web, giving everything thumbs up or thumbs down. If a site floats to the top, it has some real value worth seeing.
"The fact that this contest isn't run in a more open way makes it seems like less of a "contest" and more of a "do our research for us!" kind of thing."
Well, yes.
This ISN'T about open technologies, this is about building up to a defense (warmaking) capability.
On the one hand, you have to release a tiny bit of information, just so all the competitors have the same basic assumptions and stay in the same universe of solutions. On the other hand, you don't want to constrain the competitors too much with regard to what to pick and choose from.
And, on the Gripping Hand (or end effector as they say in the trade), you don't want to reveal too much of what you do and don't know to be possible. It is one thing to say you researched Quantum Computing. It is another to say you now know it can't handle more than 16 bit precision faster than 25MHz. You may now realize Quantum is a waste of time, but there is no reason to let your adversaries know that too. Let them waste their time and effort and money, while you move on to more profitable things. Or conversely and contrariwise, maybe you have screwed up and they will make the breakthrough you missed (think German Heavy water experiments). Again, let them work while you watch.
Publishing results is counterproductive in the most important race DARPA cares about, the arms race. They only let you know what you need to know.
We just recently buried one of my uncles, a WW2 vet. He got the flag covered casket, but no military escort at all. The funeral directors had to do the flag folding honors, and my father, 80 years old and a WW2 and Korea vet himself, had to step in and present the flag to the family. He did it as well as he could, considering it has been over 40 years since he had to do it last. "On behalf of the President, the Army, ..."
The shortage of real military honor guards is real, but it is clear to me that the former members of the military take the responsibility seriously. I've seen the Taps bugles (funeral of a cousin, former USA Colonel). I'm not happy with them, but it is also clear we can't just produce bugle players out of thin air.
You miss the point. If the anti-smokers outnumbered the smokers 10 to 1 and eradicated all mention of harmlessness in the article, would that make it more neutral? No, it would just be iased in another way. Neutrality is NOT A FUNCTION OF NUMBERS. it isn't about majority rules. It is a function of evaluating the content and deciding all sides have been considered. Uh oh, that requires Judgement. Worse, it requires Good Judgement on the part of many people with opposing interests, motivations and viewpoints.
I suspect one of the reasons Wikipedia has grown so quickly with the high quality it has is the ability of some of the brighter editors to trim controversial content out of most articles and create potboiler articles of controversy for them to fight over.
"As long as you listen to BOTH sides of the propaganda machine."
That should be good enough, but rarely is.
This isn't like some great big balance scale, where everything averages out to zero. This is s asituation of where everyone pulls in their own directiuon and the result is the Sum of their Ignornance. If it happens to land on a neutral spot, that would be great. But it is hardly guaranteed.
Like they say, "4 out of 5 doctors* agree, cigarettes don't cause cancer".
*on the Tobacco Institute Board of Directors.
What about the need for unambiguous, authenticated, recognized proof of identity? Certainly we have long since entered the age of digital sigantures. Short of being able to provide a thumbprint, blood sample, photo, and voiceprint convieniently to anyone, a compact and secure card/ID would be the next best answer.
We can't just wish ID theft away, and the current methods of "protection" are little more than that.
I think not... *POOF!*
Two reasons. First, because most people's eyes just can't pick up the difference. Good eyesight (about 20/20) is only good to about 2-3 minutes of arc. Most folks can pick out individual objects somewhat smaller than that (1 minute, like when shooting targets), but for complex scenes, they just can't pick out details. For a 25 inch SD TV that means sitting about 53 inches or closer to see "all" the resolution. For a HD TV you would have to sit proportionately closer. Most people don't sit less than 4 feet from a 25 inch screen (or 8 feet from a 50 inch screen). They may notice the HD image is "crisper" in some way, but they are unlikely to pick out Resolution as the reason.
Second, NTSC broadcasts (or cable) are rarely up to even the standard it could be, and that is what people are used to. Most people are happy to get 240 real lines out of their SD TV (good old VHS tape). When DVD hands them a 350+ image they immediately see the improvement, at ordinary viewing distances with ordinary eyes. The improvement is obvious, and worth it. But HD is just going to take them past what they can perceive. And the question becomes, "why pay for it if I can't see it?"
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha"
Yes sir, we confirm the order of Zonkers will be shipping. Seeing your triple emphasis in your sig, we will ship three cartons by overnight delivery. Billing will be by separate message.
Thank you for your business,
Miss Pers Eve Understanding,
Contract Sales
Or is Stallman just a brilliant guy with some signs of lunacy? I'm pleased as hell that he has led the charge for Free Software and cracked the gates of proprietary software wide open. The only other significant movement I ever saw in that area was from the US Government itself, and they go co-opted pretty fast.
But RMS seems to not be "with it" when it comes to actually closing the deal on the revolution. Computers taht really are by the people, for the people. Cryptic jibberish is OK, as long as it is Free cryptic jibberish.
Or maybe I'm just missing something. Its OK, it happens a lot.
"looks fine to the world outside of Internet Explorer"
Nope. I'm in Firefox right now and it is blank, as I said. Filtering for ActiveX means what it says. Nothing with an ActiveX root works.
My worksite already filters ActiveX. It doesn't make it to the desktop. We just get little blank spaces with "removed due to policy ####" on our screen.
I'm happy to see it gone, but you know what? It is really educational to see how many people have gone completely over to the ActiveX camp. For example, Pontiac.com is literally a total blank screen to me. And several others are effectively FUBAR without ActiveX. To the site builiders: No fallback plan for your web presence? Really bad marketing, Guys.
Not really.
All you need is enough parachute to slow you down to a survivable impact speed. Maybe some control surface to level you out and aerobrakes to slow you down before the chute deploys. Not even a wing really. Just enough control to send it arcing up again, and enough brake to keep the second descent slow, like a shuttlecock. Military air-to-air missiles commonly have very small control surfaces, even though they travel at Mach 2.5 Sidewinder.
"except instead of donating your spare cpu cycles for one particular task you'd be making them available for anyone to rent?"
Yes this exists, but I think the 'Bot-ware manufacturers have the market sewn up, and at $0 / hr.
The $550,000 was such a crock for CBS. In effect FCC was saying, "we are fining you for broadcasting something you had no idea was going to happen". Or to put it another way, they are telling them to never broadcast live, always go through the censor first. It was just another step down the road to pre-digested, centrally planned and filtered entertainment for the masses. Nothing new or unusual or unexpected can be tolerated. Yes I know we are really already there, but that fine was the death knell to even semi-live performances.
Let us contemplate Pat Boone's fine musical repetoire, shall we?
On the other hand, it bothers the heck out of me that a government agency is deciding how much content is enough, when we can see it, and who is allowed to see it. They are "only" doing it in retrospect, which is better than a prior restraint censorship board, but they are still making the judgement. Which just tramples the crap out of " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Not that anyone cares anymore. If we don't stop the implied teenage orgies on CBS, the terrorists will win!
There is a tech fix for this problem. Just embed a packet sniffer in the next software update to prevent traffic from coming or going to the Vyatta or XORP sites. No software, no web presence, no problem. Closed source, so who's to know? Advantage: Cisco.
Thanks, I try to cut to heart of things.
"Msuic producers have the right to set whatever price they want. You don't have the right to just take something because you can't get it at a price you want"
They have a right to be pirated too, but I don't think they enjoy that one nearly so much as the right to set prices. You have a right to leave all your worldly possessions unguarded and open to the public. But you'd be a fool to expect them to stay there overnight. Piracy isn't about their rights, it is about economics, as you say. The music and movie companies could put the pirates out of business tomorrow. Just make a legitimate copy cheap enough for the market to shift in their favor. The same market that encourages alternate acquisition (piracy) will encourage legitimacy as soon as they price themselves back into it. They (and you) can't cry "Free Market" one moment and expect people to line up for a monopoly on the other.
Well, yes it is exactly like Blackberry stole their idea. That is what patent infringement is.
Whether it was an origninal idea that NTP should own exclusive rights to is another question.
I saw he put a grounding line on the thing, and a ground rod. But Something that tall and close to an inhabited structure should really have a heavier line that goes right to the top. Lightning will fry that #6 conductor pretty fast, and then where will it want to run? Oh, by the way, he has thoughtfully provided a fortuitous conductor that leads directly into his computer! Two words, " lightning arrestor "
And I wasn't too thrilled with his weld quality either. Looks like it was showing rust in the picture. And the bottom plate looked like it would hold water, not shed it. Overall, I'm not sure I'd want it next to my home.
Copyright isn't the problem. Copyright is what allows creative people to believe thier stuff won't get pirated as soon as it is exposed to the public. If you think DRM and licensing is a nightmare now, think what it would be like if there were no legal framework for ti to work within. Content owners could and would demand any kind of onerous restrictions to be sure they didn't get reamed by their own customers.
... $1M , DVD studio cost ... $30M). Music people have no one but themselves to blame for piracy. It is just payback for the gouging they do on a regular basis, even at WalMart.
The problem (among others) is high price. By demanding high prices in the face of easy alternatives, copyright owners are encouraging piracy. Most folks would be happy to get a legitimate copy of something, and therby help the creator, if the price was "fair". You never see anyone go to a library and copy a whole book, even though it would be marginally cheaper than buying the same book at some local store. And the reason is the margin is so low that the benefit of a properly bound book is worth the extra few dollars. DVD and CD manufacturers need to take a lesson.
By the way, ever notice that the retail price of a CD and of a DVD are about the same? We know the music CD has far less data on it, and costs less to produce at the studio to stamping plant stages. Even if unit sales of each are comparable, the CD should be cheaper, probably by a factor of 10 or more (CD studio cost
"When did Snorting a remote network become illegal?"
Just last year, where have you been? The War on Drugs is never ending. Congress will stop at nothing to save you from yourself, even if you are trying to suck a ground up motherboard into your nose.
Just Say No!
Wow! I thought I was having deja-vu, but I almost never read PC Mag online. But I remembered that DRM workaround so clearly as I was reading it. I just figured this day was harder than I thought. Or that /. had published another dupe. Or maybe both are true.