Why are we even talking about this? I'll admit to not knowing much about the cloning process, but it seems to me that there is at least one major logic flaw. Aren't our cows willing to reproduce naturally? I've got family with bulls and they seem eager to hump anything that get into the pasture. Are the commercially raised beef not quite as enthusiastic? Do we actually have a shortage of breeding opportunities?:-)
Really? There *no* doubt that AT&T absolutely must put in filtering software? Seems a little facist to me.
Actually, the only thing I doubt is whether something like this could even be tested without effectively ending the Internet as we know it. Is the idea of free and unfettered exchange of information is coming to an end?
While you are correct, you've missed the point of my post. (See follow-ups for additional clarification).
I don't personally own a gun, so no.. there's no "agenda" here. And you are correct that it is not a good analogy... except than it is an example of the UK banning a TOOL rather than BEHAVIOR.
Your comment are well made, and it was not my intention to suggest that "handguns" = "hacking tools", but rather that when we start banning tools - of any kind - because they *could* be used for illicit purposes, we all lose. Can you thing of anything that could not be used for an unintended purpose?
Things already mentioned in this discussion (eg. pencils, cars, etc.) could all be used to cause harm. Are we better off banning them? Absolutely NOT! The solution is personal responsibility coupled with accountability. Simply banning the tool will ultimately cause more societal harm than good.
Not to throw too much fuel onto this fire, but the UK has a large precedent with the concept that TOOLS are the problem rather than the USERS. Look at guns. Is the phrase "guns kill people" really that much different than "hacking tools break into computers"? Not in my book. In fact, they are so similar as to be scary. Both assume that intent is not relevant, the person behind the tool is not responsible for his/her actions, and that these tools cause crime to be committed.
Come on guys... If we start banning tools that *could* be used to commit a crime you had better come lock me up now. I've got a whole garage full of hammers, screwdrivers and other tools... and I know how to use them!:-)
There are a lot of great posts here, and I am not competent to comment on the selection of programming languages, so won't even try. (For the record: yes, I do a little myself, but because I understand the fundamentals I can at least follow most languages.)
I am looking to address this same questions on a smaller scale for my niece who is homeschooled. My main focus, then, is curriculum rather than language. Does it really matter what language they use? I would think that basic programming concepts would be an excellent place to start. To that end, and after a lot of research,I found KidWare Software (http://www.kidwaresoftware.com/vbkids.htm) that makes a text-book style manual for teaching those basic skills. Yes, it's VB... but so what.
I have ordered the book but not received it yet, so I'm only going on the online samples, but if you are going to teach a large class of kids getting some pre-built material might be a lifesaver.
Jim
First - to clarify - I am *not* advocating this as a good thing. I am simply suggesting this as a possible outcome.
Now, to address your question, the point is really quite easy. If Microsoft can create a version of Linux that is also binary compatible with Windows apps (at least for the Microsoft apps), they could very quickly "own" the desktop Linux market - at least for the mainstream business market. Either way it's a WIN for Microsoft. The marketing pitch would also be easy: "we support Linux, but as evidenced by its lag in corporate acceptance it wasn't ready for mainstream. So, we jumped in a saved it from those hippies".
Perhaps, but looking at Microsoft's history this may be what occurs. They have always taken the "if you can't beat them, join them and take over..." attitude. I would absolutely welcome Microsoft, Intuit, Adobe and other key commercial providers entry into the Linux world - and would not necessarily support the idea of a Microsoft Linux distro - but somethings got to change before the heavy-hitters get on board, and I see this as one possibiliy. We're getting support for the enterprise back-end apps, but end-users apps are totally different. They want consistency in look, feel, operations, and functionality.
There has been previous discussion about porting the Windows API to Mac and Linux, so the idea of compatible binaries is really not too far off the path, particularly now that Apple is on the Intel platform. This strategy could also lay the foundation for Microsoft to port the entire suite to OS-X. Difficult, yes... but not unimaginable. And it would be a huge win for Microsoft.
Linux itself is designed to have plug-and-play interfaces. We already use KDE and Gnome, plus a host of others, so is it really all that crazy to think that Microsoft could make a cross-OS interface that does just that?
Several others have mentioned the very real problem of distro choice. Because each are different, is Microsoft going to support every one? If not, which ones? Certainly Red Hat and Novell's SUSE make sense, but although that addresses part of the problem it still doesn't resolve the greater concern of providing "MS Office for Linux".
In my opinion, while I fully support the wide range of distro's, they do nothing but hinder the real viability of Linux in a business environment.
Here's a prognostication:
Microsoft Linux: A "standardized" (yeah... I know... I'm laughing too) distribution that commercial software vendor can "count on" when converting apps to the Linux platform. Sure, it will be bastardized some, but if Microsoft handles this correctly they could end up competing very nicely. For example: (1) directly running Windows binaries, making the Wine compatibility layer unnecessary, (2) certifying applications and support, and (3) recognized branding. After all... "no one get's fired for buying Microsoft".:-)
It would take some of the revenue away from XP, but thefirst item, though, would kill many of the questions surrounding Windows versus Linux in the workplace. Both OS's could run the same binaries. Heck... Microsoft could even port the Vista interface to Linux. User's wouldn't necessarily be able to tell the difference. The ability to run Windows *and* Linux-based open-source apps on the same box would be a win for everyone.
I ran into this about 10 years ago, and with the amount of soda's in my daily diet I was consuming 2000+ calories a day... nutrition-free. Lucky me.
Although like most people I didn't care for diet drinks in the beginning, I found a way and now consume diet drinks virtually exclusively. Cold deadens the taste buds (which, coincidently, is a primary reason that American beer is served icy cold). So, my advice is to pick a diet drink that is similar to your normal choice. Ice down a couple of 12 packs until they are just above freezing. Wake up on a Saturday and start chugging. By noon you won't realize the difference.
Hope this helps,
Jim
I've read many comments in this thread, and many have excellent technical and philosophical arguments on both sides of the issue. My perspective, however, is a little more pragmatic. This issue is not new, nor will it go away anytime soon, and is one that IMHO can "make or break" the future of open-source as a general-use OS.
Users have hardware. Hardware needs drivers. Hardware makers write drivers. Hardware makers - who operate under a different set of rules than the open-source world - has legitimate reasons for keeping details a secret. So... if you have hardware, and want it to fully work on an open-source OS - and do so with all the bell's and whistle's you've paid for - you need a driver from the manufacturer and will have to accept that it is proprietary.
End of discussion.
Don't like it? Stick with a small sub-set of hardware and features that do not perform as well as they otherwise could. Otherwise, accept the driver.
It's an easy question, and I'm willing to bet that the majority of individuals (like myself) who are more user than fanatic will do just that.
Open-source is about choice... right? Then what could be bad about opening up the platform to closed-source drivers and giving each user the largest possible pool of choices. Seems to me that's a win-win proposition.
I will concur... mostly. While Microsoft does engage in some strongly predatory practices, the extent to which they can and/or do truely impact the market is grey. Also, lawyers are most definitely in the business of creating opportunity for the debate of law, which coincidentally usually equates to $$$ for them.
The article in question certainly insinuated anticompetitive behavior but also stopped just short of any real allegations. For now we need to let Microsoft just "be Microsoft". If those monopolistic tendencies do come out, then and only then do we need to step in an slap them around.
As far as holding Microsoft back, you are also correct. Let then innovate. Heck... let anyone innovate who's willing to do the work. I'm an almost pure free-market capitalist, meaning that less government intrusion = better economic growth and opportunity. It's a win-win.
You started off on the right foot, but got lost somewhere in the translation. There are *many* monopolies in business, and this is frequently not a bad thing. The legal definition of monopoly, however, is more grey than black-and-white, and makes reference to the lack of market players with equal or near equal standing. There is NO company that can be currently said to compete with Microsoft from a market ownership perspective. THAT is what makes them a legal monopoly. They have the ability to exert undue influence on the market as a whole.
As a totally crazy example (and I am not suggesting that this is occurring) imagine what would happen if company "M" used their market share to force companies "I" and "A" to build systems that could only boot from a serialized ROM chip so that "M" could move their software to a locked-down, hard coded location. The fact that others could build systems to not include this moronic feature would not be relevant because a significant portion of the consumer base would still be negatively impacted.
The catch - and Microsoft's biggest problem - is that when you own a market share that effectively gives you the same influence as a true monopoly, then you are (or should be) legally held to the same constraints and conduct standards.
Jim
NOTE: I am not an attorney. I don't play one on TV. This is based on my understanding and the conclusions are my opinions.
Maybe I'm too nostalgic, but although I have tried some of them on my PC (eg. astroids, space invaders, etc.) it's just not the same. The Atari 2600 was an experience as much as a game.
Besides... my favorites are not available anywhere: Superman and Indiana Jones!
as a *very* casual gamer, and one getting dangerously close to 40, I actually appreciate games that are (1) simplistic, (2) easy on the eyes, (3) I can figure out how to play in 30 seconds or less, and (4) don't require I make a professional investment of time to enjoy.
As for the Atari 2600, I've still got most of my cartridges; and if I had a functional console I'd still be playing them!
Does this mean I'm out of touch? Maybe... but I'm willing to be there are millions of us "out of touch" people who would love a quick game of astroids.
While books are good, you will have to wade through a lot of verbiage to find the gems. Although they won't provide the historical and technical backgrounds, you should seriously consider beginning with industry benchmarks rather than trying to make up your own.
Both will provide you with a checklist to secure your systems, and although neither will be "all inclusive" they will give you a foundation to build your security program on.
In large enterprises subject to regulatory oversight and external auditing they use these as a starting point.
While I agree the the DSM320 is not-yet-ready-for-prime-time (yes... I own one) I *can* tell you that it's not terrible either. It plays music well, has both analog and digital outputs, and supports (pay special attention to my word choice) VOB files, so theoretically I can rip DVD's to my PC and serve them up across the network. Your observations about sync problems, lockups, etc., are correct. However I think the problem is at the server rather than the remote unit. Because the DSM320 feeds from a UPnP server it does NOT require the DLINK software. In fact, any UPnP server will do.
I'm still testing this myself, so please don't consider this an endorsement, but TwonkyVision (http://www.twonkyvision.com/) makes a UPnP server that runs on Windows, Linux or MAC and supports a huge range of files and formats, including support for music (MP3, WMA, WAV, LPCM), photos (GIF, JPEG) and videos (MPEG1, MPEG2, MPEG4, AVI, WMV, VOB).
Since you are interested mainly in music, you'll be pleased to know that they have a free version that only plays music.
The concept of an instantaneous, effortless payment transfer system is certainly intriguing and *sounds* useful. I've read many of the concerns already listed and agree with them. IMO, there is a larger issue here.
As it stands, the purpose of providing a physical card and signature is to provide something analogous to two-factor authentication. Ostensibly if I (1) have physical possession of the card, and (2) can match the signature, then I get to make a purchase.
How many of us sign the back of our cards? I certainly don't. All of my cards read "Please Verify ID". The sad news is that many merchants simply don't look or don't care. So the end result is that I have a single authentication mechanism: possession of the card. This is one of the major contributors to credit card fraud.
Here in the USA many merchants, including grocery, gasoline, etc., provide POS terminals where nothing but a swipe of the card is necessary. Some will occasionally ask to see the card and ID, but in my experience those are rare.
Is there a better way? I believe so. The idea of two-factor authentication is on target but needs to be implemented in a better manner. How about providing the physical card and a PIN? If we link to biometrics there will be many people (myself included) that will balk... and for good reason. However, by requring a PIN - perhaps something longer than the standard 4 digits - we can virtually eliminate many of the concerns, reuse existing technological concepts, and increase the security of our purchases.
Going back to the POS example, if I swipe my card (regardless whether it is through or over a machine) then enter a PIN, I believe we will have succeeded in providing tangible improvements to the security of credit sales.
I'm certainly no expert in this topic, but don't think the issue of censorhip will get very far. As others have correctly noted, the ISP provides a service; you, as the consumer, can choose to use that service or not. Even the question of viable alternatives is moot, because *nothing* requires you to have Internet access. It's not a "right". It's a privilege, and one that you can choose to pay for... or not. Your choice.
However, I think there is still an issue with this, though not with the FCC. An ISP choosing to block VOIP traffic could be said to be interfering with Interstate Commerce. From either the perspective of Vonage or a company using VOIP isn't this nothing more than restraint of trade?
If I am correct, then this is a significantly bigger issue.
Thoughts?
JR
Slashdot Mirror
Why are we even talking about this? I'll admit to not knowing much about the cloning process, but it seems to me that there is at least one major logic flaw. Aren't our cows willing to reproduce naturally? I've got family with bulls and they seem eager to hump anything that get into the pasture. Are the commercially raised beef not quite as enthusiastic? Do we actually have a shortage of breeding opportunities? :-)
Actually, the only thing I doubt is whether something like this could even be tested without effectively ending the Internet as we know it. Is the idea of free and unfettered exchange of information is coming to an end?
While you are correct, you've missed the point of my post. (See follow-ups for additional clarification). I don't personally own a gun, so no.. there's no "agenda" here. And you are correct that it is not a good analogy... except than it is an example of the UK banning a TOOL rather than BEHAVIOR.
Things already mentioned in this discussion (eg. pencils, cars, etc.) could all be used to cause harm. Are we better off banning them? Absolutely NOT! The solution is personal responsibility coupled with accountability. Simply banning the tool will ultimately cause more societal harm than good.
Not to throw too much fuel onto this fire, but the UK has a large precedent with the concept that TOOLS are the problem rather than the USERS. Look at guns. Is the phrase "guns kill people" really that much different than "hacking tools break into computers"? Not in my book. In fact, they are so similar as to be scary. Both assume that intent is not relevant, the person behind the tool is not responsible for his/her actions, and that these tools cause crime to be committed. Come on guys... If we start banning tools that *could* be used to commit a crime you had better come lock me up now. I've got a whole garage full of hammers, screwdrivers and other tools... and I know how to use them! :-)
There are a lot of great posts here, and I am not competent to comment on the selection of programming languages, so won't even try. (For the record: yes, I do a little myself, but because I understand the fundamentals I can at least follow most languages.) I am looking to address this same questions on a smaller scale for my niece who is homeschooled. My main focus, then, is curriculum rather than language. Does it really matter what language they use? I would think that basic programming concepts would be an excellent place to start. To that end, and after a lot of research,I found KidWare Software (http://www.kidwaresoftware.com/vbkids.htm) that makes a text-book style manual for teaching those basic skills. Yes, it's VB... but so what. I have ordered the book but not received it yet, so I'm only going on the online samples, but if you are going to teach a large class of kids getting some pre-built material might be a lifesaver. Jim
First - to clarify - I am *not* advocating this as a good thing. I am simply suggesting this as a possible outcome.
Now, to address your question, the point is really quite easy. If Microsoft can create a version of Linux that is also binary compatible with Windows apps (at least for the Microsoft apps), they could very quickly "own" the desktop Linux market - at least for the mainstream business market. Either way it's a WIN for Microsoft. The marketing pitch would also be easy: "we support Linux, but as evidenced by its lag in corporate acceptance it wasn't ready for mainstream. So, we jumped in a saved it from those hippies".
Perhaps, but looking at Microsoft's history this may be what occurs. They have always taken the "if you can't beat them, join them and take over..." attitude. I would absolutely welcome Microsoft, Intuit, Adobe and other key commercial providers entry into the Linux world - and would not necessarily support the idea of a Microsoft Linux distro - but somethings got to change before the heavy-hitters get on board, and I see this as one possibiliy. We're getting support for the enterprise back-end apps, but end-users apps are totally different. They want consistency in look, feel, operations, and functionality.
There has been previous discussion about porting the Windows API to Mac and Linux, so the idea of compatible binaries is really not too far off the path, particularly now that Apple is on the Intel platform. This strategy could also lay the foundation for Microsoft to port the entire suite to OS-X. Difficult, yes... but not unimaginable. And it would be a huge win for Microsoft.
Linux itself is designed to have plug-and-play interfaces. We already use KDE and Gnome, plus a host of others, so is it really all that crazy to think that Microsoft could make a cross-OS interface that does just that?
Am I wrong? Possibly... Time will tell.
Several others have mentioned the very real problem of distro choice. Because each are different, is Microsoft going to support every one? If not, which ones? Certainly Red Hat and Novell's SUSE make sense, but although that addresses part of the problem it still doesn't resolve the greater concern of providing "MS Office for Linux".
:-)
In my opinion, while I fully support the wide range of distro's, they do nothing but hinder the real viability of Linux in a business environment.
Here's a prognostication:
Microsoft Linux: A "standardized" (yeah... I know... I'm laughing too) distribution that commercial software vendor can "count on" when converting apps to the Linux platform. Sure, it will be bastardized some, but if Microsoft handles this correctly they could end up competing very nicely. For example: (1) directly running Windows binaries, making the Wine compatibility layer unnecessary, (2) certifying applications and support, and (3) recognized branding. After all... "no one get's fired for buying Microsoft".
It would take some of the revenue away from XP, but thefirst item, though, would kill many of the questions surrounding Windows versus Linux in the workplace. Both OS's could run the same binaries. Heck... Microsoft could even port the Vista interface to Linux. User's wouldn't necessarily be able to tell the difference. The ability to run Windows *and* Linux-based open-source apps on the same box would be a win for everyone.
Thoughts?
I ran into this about 10 years ago, and with the amount of soda's in my daily diet I was consuming 2000+ calories a day... nutrition-free. Lucky me. Although like most people I didn't care for diet drinks in the beginning, I found a way and now consume diet drinks virtually exclusively. Cold deadens the taste buds (which, coincidently, is a primary reason that American beer is served icy cold). So, my advice is to pick a diet drink that is similar to your normal choice. Ice down a couple of 12 packs until they are just above freezing. Wake up on a Saturday and start chugging. By noon you won't realize the difference. Hope this helps, Jim
I've read many comments in this thread, and many have excellent technical and philosophical arguments on both sides of the issue. My perspective, however, is a little more pragmatic. This issue is not new, nor will it go away anytime soon, and is one that IMHO can "make or break" the future of open-source as a general-use OS.
Users have hardware. Hardware needs drivers. Hardware makers write drivers. Hardware makers - who operate under a different set of rules than the open-source world - has legitimate reasons for keeping details a secret. So... if you have hardware, and want it to fully work on an open-source OS - and do so with all the bell's and whistle's you've paid for - you need a driver from the manufacturer and will have to accept that it is proprietary.
End of discussion.
Don't like it? Stick with a small sub-set of hardware and features that do not perform as well as they otherwise could. Otherwise, accept the driver.
It's an easy question, and I'm willing to bet that the majority of individuals (like myself) who are more user than fanatic will do just that.
Open-source is about choice... right? Then what could be bad about opening up the platform to closed-source drivers and giving each user the largest possible pool of choices. Seems to me that's a win-win proposition.
Jim
I will concur... mostly. While Microsoft does engage in some strongly predatory practices, the extent to which they can and/or do truely impact the market is grey. Also, lawyers are most definitely in the business of creating opportunity for the debate of law, which coincidentally usually equates to $$$ for them.
The article in question certainly insinuated anticompetitive behavior but also stopped just short of any real allegations. For now we need to let Microsoft just "be Microsoft". If those monopolistic tendencies do come out, then and only then do we need to step in an slap them around.
As far as holding Microsoft back, you are also correct. Let then innovate. Heck... let anyone innovate who's willing to do the work. I'm an almost pure free-market capitalist, meaning that less government intrusion = better economic growth and opportunity. It's a win-win.
You started off on the right foot, but got lost somewhere in the translation. There are *many* monopolies in business, and this is frequently not a bad thing. The legal definition of monopoly, however, is more grey than black-and-white, and makes reference to the lack of market players with equal or near equal standing. There is NO company that can be currently said to compete with Microsoft from a market ownership perspective. THAT is what makes them a legal monopoly. They have the ability to exert undue influence on the market as a whole.
As a totally crazy example (and I am not suggesting that this is occurring) imagine what would happen if company "M" used their market share to force companies "I" and "A" to build systems that could only boot from a serialized ROM chip so that "M" could move their software to a locked-down, hard coded location. The fact that others could build systems to not include this moronic feature would not be relevant because a significant portion of the consumer base would still be negatively impacted.
The catch - and Microsoft's biggest problem - is that when you own a market share that effectively gives you the same influence as a true monopoly, then you are (or should be) legally held to the same constraints and conduct standards.
Jim
NOTE: I am not an attorney. I don't play one on TV. This is based on my understanding and the conclusions are my opinions.
Maybe I'm too nostalgic, but although I have tried some of them on my PC (eg. astroids, space invaders, etc.) it's just not the same. The Atari 2600 was an experience as much as a game.
Besides... my favorites are not available anywhere: Superman and Indiana Jones!
as a *very* casual gamer, and one getting dangerously close to 40, I actually appreciate games that are (1) simplistic, (2) easy on the eyes, (3) I can figure out how to play in 30 seconds or less, and (4) don't require I make a professional investment of time to enjoy.
As for the Atari 2600, I've still got most of my cartridges; and if I had a functional console I'd still be playing them!
Does this mean I'm out of touch? Maybe... but I'm willing to be there are millions of us "out of touch" people who would love a quick game of astroids.
I wonder if I could get them to print me a new scalp with hair that doesn't fall out? :-)
While books are good, you will have to wade through a lot of verbiage to find the gems. Although they won't provide the historical and technical backgrounds, you should seriously consider beginning with industry benchmarks rather than trying to make up your own.
y =stepxstep&portal=d3e56294b582309b0d88a6990e8621ce
Try these for starters:
Center for Internet Security
http://www.cisecurity.org/
SANS Step-By-Step Guides
https://store.sans.org/store_category.php?categor
Both will provide you with a checklist to secure your systems, and although neither will be "all inclusive" they will give you a foundation to build your security program on.
In large enterprises subject to regulatory oversight and external auditing they use these as a starting point.
Hope this helps,
Jim Robinson Jr., CISSP
While I agree the the DSM320 is not-yet-ready-for-prime-time (yes... I own one) I *can* tell you that it's not terrible either. It plays music well, has both analog and digital outputs, and supports (pay special attention to my word choice) VOB files, so theoretically I can rip DVD's to my PC and serve them up across the network. Your observations about sync problems, lockups, etc., are correct. However I think the problem is at the server rather than the remote unit. Because the DSM320 feeds from a UPnP server it does NOT require the DLINK software. In fact, any UPnP server will do.
I'm still testing this myself, so please don't consider this an endorsement, but TwonkyVision (http://www.twonkyvision.com/) makes a UPnP server that runs on Windows, Linux or MAC and supports a huge range of files and formats, including support for music (MP3, WMA, WAV, LPCM), photos (GIF, JPEG) and videos (MPEG1, MPEG2, MPEG4, AVI, WMV, VOB).
Since you are interested mainly in music, you'll be pleased to know that they have a free version that only plays music.
Worth a shot!
Jim
The concept of an instantaneous, effortless payment transfer system is certainly intriguing and *sounds* useful. I've read many of the concerns already listed and agree with them. IMO, there is a larger issue here.
As it stands, the purpose of providing a physical card and signature is to provide something analogous to two-factor authentication. Ostensibly if I (1) have physical possession of the card, and (2) can match the signature, then I get to make a purchase.
How many of us sign the back of our cards? I certainly don't. All of my cards read "Please Verify ID". The sad news is that many merchants simply don't look or don't care. So the end result is that I have a single authentication mechanism: possession of the card. This is one of the major contributors to credit card fraud.
Here in the USA many merchants, including grocery, gasoline, etc., provide POS terminals where nothing but a swipe of the card is necessary. Some will occasionally ask to see the card and ID, but in my experience those are rare.
Is there a better way? I believe so. The idea of two-factor authentication is on target but needs to be implemented in a better manner. How about providing the physical card and a PIN? If we link to biometrics there will be many people (myself included) that will balk... and for good reason. However, by requring a PIN - perhaps something longer than the standard 4 digits - we can virtually eliminate many of the concerns, reuse existing technological concepts, and increase the security of our purchases.
Going back to the POS example, if I swipe my card (regardless whether it is through or over a machine) then enter a PIN, I believe we will have succeeded in providing tangible improvements to the security of credit sales.
Thoughts?
Jim
I'm certainly no expert in this topic, but don't think the issue of censorhip will get very far. As others have correctly noted, the ISP provides a service; you, as the consumer, can choose to use that service or not. Even the question of viable alternatives is moot, because *nothing* requires you to have Internet access. It's not a "right". It's a privilege, and one that you can choose to pay for... or not. Your choice. However, I think there is still an issue with this, though not with the FCC. An ISP choosing to block VOIP traffic could be said to be interfering with Interstate Commerce. From either the perspective of Vonage or a company using VOIP isn't this nothing more than restraint of trade? If I am correct, then this is a significantly bigger issue. Thoughts? JR