Every watt of electricity you burn in those datacenters costs you double (at least), because you then have to pay the air conditioning to suck that heat out. At the cost there isn't in the electricity to run the AC, it's the initial and maintance cost of a bigger AC.
Otherwise you pay much much more than that to replace failed components.
It's unlikely that power accounts for all of google's choice, but it's total impact is mostly NOT the pure cost of the electricity.
Some of the posters are making arguments about needing to access disks fast, and that implying a RAID which is more expensive because you need more disks, and that is probably closest to the mark.
Re:The proprietary lic. was a very smart move.
on
LinuxWorld Summary
·
· Score: 2
If getting linux running on machines inside a Fortune 500 company is your pet project, then good luck, and I hope that you find what you need.
But my concern with the licensing of Ximian projects and parts of.NET doesn't derive from the worry that Fortune 500 companies may not make the most technically sound software choices. In fact, I'm pretty sure that whatever we do Fortune 500 companies will tend to buy over conservative, overly bloated, over priced crap. If Linux or FreeBSD was the only OS out there, they would invent a SCO or IBM to price it higher for them.
My main concern is Freedom, especially my Freedom. If Miguel devotes resources to writing GPL or LGPL code, I am sure those resources are not being used to curtail what I can do. If he writes code under the X11/MIT license, then that code may be used by parties that have shown a consistent inclination to try to limit what I can do with my computers.
So if Art Popp is happy because his job just got easier, great. If I have to look forward to the time several years or a decade hence, when I can't read web pages or emails from my Mom because they are only readable with.NET version 6.66 which MS changed and the old X11 licensed free.NET doesn't read, and.NET is the only net out there because it became universal when Miguel's software worked on all alternitive OS's . . . . well, you'll have to forgive me for saying that I'd prefer that Art Popp and his Fortune 500 company all went the way of Enron. If it comes to my Freedom or you being able to use cool software at your Fortune 500 client, learn to shake a tin cup, fucker.
Not that I have any real say in the matter -- except one thing: I can refuse to get on.NET/Mono bandwagon now, and dig in my heels just like I delete unread MSOffice attachments, take the lost business and angry frustrated friends it generates, and BE FREE.
I think I'll write to RMS directly with my concerns.
Re:What about GNOME and .NET
on
LinuxWorld Summary
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Then there was that whole stir-up with RMS running for a position on the Gnome board and loosing. I think I recall he made some vague references about being distrubed about the direction Gnome was going, and the need to keep it focused on Freedom.
But RMS seemed concilatory when the non-GPL license was announced.
Can someone with more connections into the Cambridge circle of FSF people comment on what the heck is going on ? Personally I feel disturbed by this.NET focus and the proprietary software from Ximian, enough to start focusing on finding non-de Icaza replacements for tools I depend on (switching from gnucash to SQLledger will be the biggest).
Has de Icaza just lost it and sold out ? Does RMS see.NET as a very big threat, way bigger than everyone else is seeing it, and thus it is worth any strategy at all to open it up ? Can someone fill in with information on the views of the key players ?
I suggest taking a look at floppyfw. They ripped out a lot of the rc.d stuff there to get to a simpler (well, easier to trace through and figure out) initialization scripts.
I would start with that, and install it on a harddrive, and gradually start adding things until you had all the necessary tools to compile and built a copy of it yourself. Trim down and consolidate the start scripts until you have something you like.
However, I suspect that you will find that the runlevel style initialization scripts are there for a reason. One does need some way to organize all that stuff. You can easily (well, a few weekends and evenings of piddling around) build what you describe. However, you will find that you are re-doing too much of the distro each time you add a package. If other people start using it, and adding packages that you never heard of (like some random database server or something) and start them up automatically, you will swiftly get pissed at the whole situation (especially when they send you email accusing you writing a broken linux or whatever) and decide that the init.d scripts weren't so bad after all.
And about the hundredth time you install something just to find out some arcane library needs and updated version, or the hundreth time you tell some other user that he can't install LyX without having xforms, you will also see the goodness of package system.
Check out a linux based on the BSD ports system, Gentoo I think is the most common one. Maybe that will give you enough to satisfy.
Another route is to stick with DOS, and get the Free Software Foundation's book and CD "GNU Tools for MS-Windows and MS-DOS." This is a set of all the standard GNU tools (emacs, perl, bash, gcc, sed, awk, latex, etc) compiled for DOS and put in a nice package with an installation program. I have purchased several copies of this from the FSF by mail order. If you want a copy of the CD, I may be able to get you the.iso of it, email me if you are insterested.
Oh and one last thing -- whoever modded the parent comment as a troll should be $rbtl'd or whatever it is, or have their account set to put all page-widening posts at +5 Insightful.
I strongly second this recommendation.
Another good one is Nuts and Volts magazine. I have bought a copy of Nuts and Volts every month for about a year now, it's probably time to subscribe.
Depending on what hardware stuff you are into, another site to check out is the the piclist.
For what work I have to do on DOS, I like the "GNU Tools for MS-DOS and MS-Windows" publication by the Free Software Foundation. They recently came out with a second edition. I urge you to buy the book and CD from the FSF, but the.iso of the CD (which has the text of the book) is on gnutella and probably elsewhere too. Leave some copies of the book around, some of the kids might read it.
The development environment should be emacs and Makefiles. Maybe vim instead of emacs. But for the type of projects you would do in a class, the build process won't be that complecated. If you make one Makefile that builds two.o's and links them together, people should be able to take that as a template and do all they need to do. Yes, there will be some time spent learning make and emacs instead of programming, but emacs/vim and make (and gcc) are available for almost any platform the students are likely to encounter, and you will be betraying them as a teacher if you don't teach them stuff they can use.
Using a PIC 16F877 connected to a MAX232 (serial port) and a pair of receiver/transmitters from Laipac:
http://laipac.com/products/wireless.htm
(I'm using the RLP916A and the TLP916A on that page).
I haven't gotten the radios in yet. I have the other parts though. A transmitter/receiver pair ends up costing $20 including the shipping, the PIC and the MAX232 make up about another $6 if I remember correctly.
If anyone is interested in these, email me in a couple of weeks and see if I got it working.
I would be happy to have the source in assembly. Wouldn't bother me at all. If that's what made it so fast on DOS, it would be worth the effort to make it work on other platforms.
The source code to these old programs is not "next to useless" at all. It would no doubt require some concerted, expert effort to bring it to modern processors and OS's, but you don't have to "reverse engineer" it. After all, this is what the original authors worked from, and it can be pretty messy, but that is not the same as decompiling a binary and working from that.
And finally, I probably would not be interested in a version ported to "modern APIs like DirectX or SDL." I might tolerate something written for X with straight xlib calls (that might be almost as painful), or the GTK or Athena widget set. But I would prefer a console program that can output postscript files to be previewed in another program. (The print preview in WP 5 for DOS is ok.)
If you have the opportunity, find an old 486 or early pentium and load up DRDOS and WP 5. Look at how fast it takes it to fully load a large document, and do a print-preview to see the "graphics" capabilities. Then load up OpenOffice on a 2 GHz linux box with your stop watch running.
I know there was a version of WP that would work in console mode in Linux. Unfortunately it was part of some "professional" edition of the WP package, and I have never been able to get my hands on it.
I've checked with various friends who owned linux versions of WP, the various versions of WP that were released with the boxed versions of some distributions, used bookstores that occasionally had Linux software, etc. No luck yet.
But even so, the whole point would be to get a free software version. Unless the source code is available and unfettered with licenses and threats of legal action, it will just die again, not be ported to new systems and gradually fade away. Finding that copy would be extremely useful to me right now, but it wouldn't solve the problem they way a free software version would.
My first candidate for free source to a discontinued product would be the DOS version of word perfect. The reason why is that I would like a console only (no X) version of WP for linux.
If I wanted to fund a terrorist or other nefarious organization, I would not use Paypal, even under the old rules. I would simply incorporate a company which did "cunsulting" and hired other "consultants." Or better yet, was involved in a little cigarette import/export on the side. If even a small portion of Osama bin Laden's billions or millions were in Paypal accounts, those guys would probably be making money.
While I would agree that certain authorities are probably excessively paranoid about any type of anonymous money transfer, I don't think that paypal's actions are explained by that. You can send up to $300 cash by Western Union without providing ID, why wouldn't they go after that first, before they went after all the pathetic little paypal accounts ? Look at postal money orders. The source of funds there is more anonymous than paypal, because it's cash at a post office, where as any paypal money had to enter the system via a known individual.
Why didn't paypal just freeze all non-verified accounts ? Instead, they choose to allow people to put money into them, but not take money out. The FBI, Secret Service, IRS, and others are pretty humourless by the book types; I find it difficult to see them corrupting their anti-terrorism actions by allowing a private company to collect interest off of suspect moneys. If they thought that paypal was a haven for illicit funds, they would simply freeze all non-verified funds in such a way that they could not be claimed as assets by the bank ( x.com in this case ) and weren't earning interest for anyone, except maybe Uncle Sam.
Paypal's action doesn't bear the bureaucratic marks of the three-letter agencies. It does look like an attempt to reserve sums to be used to fund paypal, by making it bureaucratically difficult to withdraw the funds. This behaviour has been documented before, look at paypalsucks.com or other sites. It is no morally different than advertising a mail-in rebate in big print, and then when the customer gets ready to send it it require various documentation they are not likely to have.
The reason why I didn't want to link any bank account is the same reason why I don't allow my employer to direct deposit, why I don't allow the cable or utilities to directly withdraw from my money: to set up such arrangements you have to enter into a non-symmetric agreement, namely, that if they make a mistake and pay you too much or take too little, they get to automatically correct it by withdrawing more from your account, but if the mistake is in their favor not yours, you don't get to automatically do anything, you have to complain and write letters and etc.
Take a close look at your next few phone and cable bills. These guys are not competent enough to have access to my bank account, it is as simple as that. I signed up for AT&T at 22 dollars a month, and my latest bill shows basic service at 34 dollars, with all kinds of features mysteriously appearing. I'll have to do my twice yearly call to them sometime soon, two hours on hold and then cancel everything they've added and complain, with no hope of getting any money back for the overcharges I've already paid.
If you think about it, all money is is tokens to keep track of debts in a big accounting system. That's why it is so easy for banks to handle everything electronicly between them. In it's initial incarnation, paypal offered the promise off allowing free electronic payments (or accounting of debts) between individuals, the classic internet democritization of a previously elite ability. Since they turned into a bunch of grasping corporate theives, it's hard to see what they have to offer any more.
Just remember this . . . it's cheaper to pay someone with a postal money order (75 cents) and a stamp (34 cents) than it is to send money via paypal ( 2.9 percent plus 35 cents). Given that all paypal has to do is a database transaction in their server, why is it cheaper for the USPS to actually deliver a piece of paper ? Come on, a fucking moderation of a comment is database transaction on slashdot, and they make money doing it for free; why does paypal have to charge several dollars per transaction, especially given that they are already earning interest off of my money ?
On Dec. 12th they sent me a letter telling me that they were going to not allow me to take money out of my account as of Dec 13th unless I "verified" my account.
I have had a paypal account for quite some time. I never connected it to a bank or credit card, because I didn't want to (I have canceled most of my credit cards for charging me "credit protection fees" I didn't want, there's only one left, and consumer banking is also a rip-em-off-by-small-fees industry, so I have to switch banks regularly too.) The manner in which I used paypal was I would wait until someone paid me for lunch or dinner via paypal, and then I would use the money mainly to donate to freenet and dyndns.org and other worthy places.
A roommate paid me rent via paypal one month, and so I was using that account to buy christmas stuff on ebay. I still had about $200 in there when they tried to steal it. Luckily I checked my email before the 24 hour notice was up, and transfered it to someone who had a verified account and I trusted to pay me later.
Paypal used to have a very nice business plan. You could verify or link your account if you wanted, but you didn't have to; there were no fees, and they earned money from the interest of what was in the accounts. I used to purposely keep a little money in there because I figured it would make sure they made money. I don't understand why they couldn't make that work. Instead, they appear to have abandoned that plan altogether, and are focusing on charging fees and becoming an online debit card.
Which would be fine, I suppose, but if you let people accumulate money on the presumption they can spend it, you can't freeze the money and keep it. The "service agreement" or whatever doesn't matter much here, there are certain things which are simply against the law.
For the dubious, here's the email from Paypal:
(MAIL HEADER DELETED TO GET AROUND LAMENESS FILTER)
Dear PayPal Member:
You are receiving this announcement because our records indicate
that:
(asterisk deleted to get around lameness) You have funds in your PayPal account
and
(asterisk deleted to get around lame ass) You do not have a credit card or confirmed bank account
associated with your PayPal account
We want to make sure you are aware of the following policy update,
which affects your PayPal account and was posted on PayPal\222s Policy
Updates web page November 29, 2001.
(LINE OF EQUALS SINGS DELETED IN ATTEMTP TO GET AROUND LAMENESS FILTER)
Date Posted: November 29, 2001
Effective Date: December 13, 2001
To increase the security of the PayPal system, effective December 13,
2001, members will be required to have a credit card or confirmed
bank account with PayPal before they can send any payments, even if
they have funds in their PayPal account.
(ANOTHER LINE OF EQUALS REMOVED. Jeez. How hard to I have to work to make a fucking post ?)
To spend the funds in your PayPal account you need to add a credit
card or a bank account. To add a credit card or bank account, log in
to your PayPal account and follow the simple steps in the Activate
Account box. (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_login- run).
We recommend that you add a bank account so you will be able to spend
the funds in your account and easily transfer funds between your
PayPal account and your bank account.
If you would like to withdraw funds from your PayPal account, the
easiest and fastest way to withdraw funds is to add a bank account.
To add a bank account, login to your PayPal account and follow the
steps in the Activate Account box
(https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_logi n- run). You may also
request a check by logging in to your PayPal account and clicking on
the Withdraw tab.
Thank you for using PayPal!
The PayPal Team
(LINE OF DASHES DELETED TO GET AROUND ROB MALDA'S ADMISSION THAT MODERATION DOESN'T WORK)
This PayPal notification was sent to rgristroph@yahoo.com because
your account is likely to be impacted by a recent change to our
service. PayPal reserves the right to contact members regarding
important product or policy announcements. To modify your
notification preferences, click here to login to your account.
Replies to this email will not be processed.
Copyright@ 2001 PayPal Inc. All rights reserved. Designated
trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.
--
Happy Happy Joy Joy, I love the lameness filter. Can I post now ? nope. Maybe I should past some random crap in here to bring the average up. Or put every character on a separate line like the page-lengthening guy. Please rob, goddamn I just wanna post this. Maybe that is enough. No it is not. Perhaps I should just give up on including the mail header in the post, but I think it gives more authenticity. Probably no one will question the accuracy of my post, except of course the lameness filter. Does not the bugtracker on sourceforge have all kinds of bugs related to the lameness filter ? Perhaps everytime we hit it, we should just mail the post to the slashdot editors and ask them to record it as a bug. Ok, delete some shit and add more text down here. Ratio ok yet ? No it is not. Somebody help me, I'm lame ! Jesus H. Christ in a horse manger, what does it take ?
I think a more realistic goal to hope for is the removal of all copyright privildges (i.e., it would enter the public domain) on particular pieces of code that were part of an illegal action by Microsoft. For example, it is conceivable to immagine a court rulling that because Microsoft illegally tied (using technological means) X version of IE and X version of Windows95, the source code for those works will be removed from copyright and allowed into the public domain just as if the copyright had expired.
to finally get off my ass and send my own. I'm mailing it via USPS, but I'll also email a copy to make sure it gets there before the deadline in early January.
Here's mine:
\documentclass{letter}
\begin{document}
\address{Robert G. Ristroph \\
11612 Hidden Quail \\
Austin, TX 78758 }
\signature{Robert G. Ristroph}
\begin{letter}{ Renata B. Hesse \\
Antitrust Division \\
U.S. Department of Justice \\
601 D Street NW \\
Suite 1200 \\
Washington, DC 20530-0001 }
\opening{Dear Ms. Hesse,}
I am writing with regard to the Justice Department's proposed settlement with
Microsoft. I believe that this settlement should be scrapped and completely
rewritten. Most of the ``restrictions'' placed on Microsoft are already
illegal; what few restrictions are left are impossible to enforce and seem
designed to produce more legal disputes rather than resolve them; and the
proposed enforcement mechanism is a ludicrous embarrassment. In addition to
scrapping this proposed settlement, any payment or further employment of the
authors should be re-evaluated in light of this idiocy.
I have read the original complaint of United States and the several States at
\texttt{http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f1700/176 3. htm}, the proposed settlement
at \texttt{http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495. htm}, the Competitive
Impact Statement at \texttt{http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495. htm}, as
well as numerous other sources including the findings of fact and other
documents.
My own injury by Microsoft's illegal actions comes from Microsoft's agreements
with OEM's which forced my employer to pay for Windows when buying a new
computer from Dell, which we had no plans to use Windows, intending it for
Linux. This was supposedly addressed in a prior case to the present one, and
yet to this day the same hardware without a Microsoft license has the same cost.
I wish to examine the elements of the proposed agreement item by item, and then
propose an outline of an alternative settlement.
A. That Microsoft will not retaliate against OEMs for distributing non-Microsoft
software. This is already prohibited by law, given Microsoft's monopoly.
The proposed settlement can not consist of Microsoft agreeing to follow the
law in the future; like other companies in the United States, it has to
follow the law regardless of this settlement.
B. That Microsoft make public it's licensing agreements and offer the same terms
to everyone. This is the only part of the proposed settlement makes sense,
however, OEMs have shown in the past they were willing to collaborate in
Microsoft's illegal activities. Should Microsoft offer an OEM a secrete
payback or special deal, the cooperation of the OEM will make this section
difficult to enforce.
C. That Microsoft cannot restrict certain OEM software through agreements. This
is already illegal, like A.
D. Some meaningless nonsense not worthy of comment or the paper it is printed
on.
E. That communications protocols in Microsoft software be publicly available.
In light of Microsoft's previous behavior in exploiting secrete calls in
it's software, all of it's source code should be available for public
examination. The suggestion that only ``communications protocols'' be public
is problematic because it leaves open to dispute what consists of a
communications protocol. This is foolish given Microsoft's previous
self-serving interpretations of court orders.
F. That Microsoft will not retaliate against software vendors for competing
against them. This is already against the law given that Microsoft is a
monopoly.
G. That fixed percentage distribution agreements be banned. This is already
against the law. The exceptions listed in this paragraph are also against
the law, creating the suggestion that the United States will enter into an
agreement with Microsoft to allow it to break the law in some cases.
H. That OEMs and users are allowed to configure the Microsoft software they
buy. This is vague and confusing because it is difficult to precisely
describe what consists of configuring software, and thus impossible to
reliably enforce. In a competitive market it would be the natural case, and
the proposed settlement should focus on restoring competition.
I. That Microsoft offer licenses to ``intellectual property'' necessary to allow
others to exercise ``alternatives provided under this final judgment.''
The reference to alternatives provided to others contradicts the final
section of the proposed settlement, which explicitly denies that the final
settlement gives any rights to third parties. Even aside from that, this
section probably denies behavior already illegal, is riddled with
exceptions, vague, and seems designed to produce legal action rather than
remedy.
J. A section devoted wholly to exceptions for Microsoft, as if there where not
enough already.
The Enforcement Authority:
A. Access to source code is probably one of the best remedies. The exceptions
and limitation of this access to a committee are silly.
B. The Technical Committee. It has too few members, it should be composed of
Officers of a United States Federal Court in order to make it's requests
immediately enforceable through Contempt hearings, and the gag on public
statements renders the whole committee useless. The further restriction that
the testimony of this muzzled and hobbled committee not be admissible in
court is a bit like shooting the deer after it's tied down with it's throat
cut.
C. The Microsoft Compliance Officer. This section is nonsense. Other
companies manage to obey the law without the use of a special office. If
Microsoft needs one they can implement it without a judgment.
D. Voluntary Dispute Resolution. This section seems dedicated to stipulating
that various parties send each other letters before seeking court hearings, a
common practice. 4(d) guts all enforcement power from the proposed
judgment, and suggests that the Attorneys for the Justice Department don't
believe in their own system of courts.
Third Party Rights:
This section is in contradiction with other references to the submission of
complaints to the Technical Committee and the requirement that Microsoft offer
``intellectual property'' licenses to the third parties so that they can pursue
the alternatives guaranteed them in this proposed final judgment.
In summary, this proposed final judgment is a poor sham for a capitulation by
the Plaintiffs. It's not even a good surrender, because it's vagueness and
self-contradictions guarantee more legal action; if we must capitulate, at least
we should save on legal costs. It also completely fails to disguise the
capitulation in any way. This is why whoever wrote it should be fired, even if
the Justice Department unwisely chooses to fail to enforce the law as applies to
Microsoft.
A real final judgment, which might have the chance of remedying the situation,
would have to be in some way ``self enforcing.'' By ``self enforcing'' I mean
that the remedy by it's nature should preclude further legal wrangling and
evasion efforts by Microsoft. Stipulations on Microsoft's future behavior
inherently have to be enforced, and thus are not well suited to this case.
Furthermore, when the proposed judgment stipulates that behavior already
illegal be banned and then suggests exceptions, the Plaintiffs are acquiescing in
further law breaking by Microsoft.
An example of a ``self enforcing'' remedy would be denying Microsoft copyright
protection. No Technical Committee is required; all that is needed is to reject
out of hand cases of copyright enforcement that Microsoft brings. Thus,
revoking copyright privileges for some portion of the works that Microsoft used
to violate the law might be an appropriate remedy. Or perhaps Microsoft could
post substantial bonds against it's future behavior.
Many of the major flaws in this proposed final settlement result from the
needless use of vague and disputable terms, when simple and undisputable ones
would do.
Replace all references to ``Microsoft Middleware'' ``Windows Operating System
Product'' and such with the simple phrases ``products of Microsoft'' and
``products of third parties.'' Avoid even the use the term ``software
products,'' as Microsoft would produce hardware required to run their products
and then violate the agreement. Be sure the phrase ``products'' is defined to
mean anything Microsoft does, including services.
Replace all references to ``ISVs, IHVs, ICDs, OEMs'' and such with the phrase
``any third party.'' Quibbling over which member of the alphabet soup a
particular entity fell under is thus eliminated. The final judgment should
require no differentiation between the various consumers and companies
interacting with Microsoft. This also remedies the fault that the current
proposed judgment allows Microsoft to exempt any third party from the benefits
of what legal behavior is required by claiming they do not have a viable
business plan.
I hope you find these suggestions helpful in writing a real judgment.
Part of the case against Microsoft is that certain things are illegal once you are a monopoly, even if you got that monopoly legally, indeed even if the government personally handed it to you, as in the case of a public utility.
If Microsoft is a monopoly, then Microsoft cannot require OEMs to buy a license for windows for every computer shipped that has only linux on it. Regardless of how Microsoft got that way.
Lawsuits didn't matter before, why should they start mattering now ? Especially since any major hole in passport will likely come with a convient scapegoat, a hacker, all the better if you haven't actually caught him and can make him out to be bigger and more dangerous than he is.
The customers only indirectly bear the cost of fraud, so it's not like people will flee passport after being burned.
When credit card fraud happens, it is often the merchant who gets burned. It is conceivable (although in my opinion, unlikely) that merchants might stop using the passport service after seeing a higher rate of fraud with it, the way some online merchants have switched to or away from paypal in response to fraud.
The credit card company can carry the cost of fraud sometimes. Visa and Mastercard are looking into systems that would be more secure, and offering to accept the cost of fraud in order to convince merchants to use them. If cost of fraud is high enough, those companies might try to stop their cards from being used on passport, or charge a special fee to those customers who do use it.
I'm not arguing that the customer's should bear the cost of the fraud. The one person who doesn't have much effect on the overall security of the system is the customer; in general the cost of fraud should be born by those who have the ability to fix the security -- this creates a system in which appropriate resources are directed to the problem.
But one part of the whole credit card system is the fact that it hides the cost of the system from customers. Those 1.5 to 2.5 percent fees on every credit card transaction are carefully hidden from the consumer. It was at least once true that credit card companies would refuse a merchant who simply tacked on the fee like a slaes tax. (PC's For Everyone in Cambridge Mass. used to be a counter example.)
Because the nature of credit card business is to invisibly pass the cost on ( and not just to it's own customers, mind you . . . since the merchant can't charge that 2.5 percent to the customer's who use credit cards, he raises all prices slightly, so you pay even if you use cash ) it is well suited to passing on the cost of fraud in a similarly undetectable way.
I don't see any reason why cost of fraud on a weak passport system simply won't be spread around to all of us, even those who don't use it. Think of it like another windows tax -- you pay Microsoft if you order a computer without windows, if that OEM is selling Windows to any other customers; you pay Microsoft if you buy anything from anyone who accepts passport from other customers. Welcome to the new world order.
But there is one thing that Access did do, and that is it made (mildly) complecated database queries available to the unwashed non-programming masses. Ok, it wasn't Access that did it first, it was probably hypercard, (hey, remember this cool story about the guy who used hypercard to extract unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls from a consordance?) or even something earlier like the first ingres, but the fact that is that by using Access dumb people can do things that they couldn't otherwise.
It's true that a php/apache/postgres system is better, but it also makes those people dependent on us to set up apache, php, and postgres. It may also make them have to figure out how to structure their queries in php or some other text interface instead of clicking and grunting.
There is a definite need for a system that presents a click-and-drool interface to suck in large amounts of data and parse it (with a gui based fill-in-the-feilds manner of making the conditions or regexps) and then present the results in enticing graphs. It doesn't have to do any network stuff, it can simply be a single user manipulating a file. The type of users I'm talking about often use sneaker net or email attachements for all file transfers inspite of the existence of database servers and networked drives.
Every time I research this I'm left feeling dissatisfied, because it seems that someone could wire/kludge together a system that was a locally running apache (even in userspace, talking only to the local user that started it) running a pretty generic php interface talking to mySQL or postgres. The interface would have to allow you to save queries somehow, and do all the other things that Access people are used to. Even an idiot like me could probably wire together a buggy piece of shit in a week or so, so I would expect some admin at a low-budget shop such as a school or non-profit had already wired that together. I can't believe I'm the first on to think of this.
Since I last tried out various things, I've discovered MySQL Navigator. Has anyone had any experience giving this to Access-addicted users to see what they say ? The screenshots seem full of pointy-clicky stuff to keep them happy.
I mostly agree with your observations on editting and the importance of quality content and how it is formed. I agree that people don't realize how much value a good editor brings. I don't see how any of those observations suggest micropayment, or any payment, systems are necessary or desirable or likely to happen.
It will fail for the same reason that paying fees to download mp3's will fail -- people won't do it, and technology gives them another option. The infrastructure of any micropayment system will annoy enough people who are necessary to the survival of the site (as audience or creators/posters) that it will fail and the free sites, or usenet, will succeed.
Just because you think we all SHOULD reward those "busking" (is that what it's called ? those guys should be shot) subway artists or web posters doesn't mean we will. You might say "how will our culture survive?" or "without it the web will die!" or whatever, but it's like a little kid who doesn't believe in the speed of light because otherwise how will Capt. Kirk get the to the stars ? I don't know how humans will go to the stars or what type of net we will create, but micropayments will be a rare curiosity on it, and our spaceships will not go faster than light.
If you want to think of what the net will be like in 30 years, think of what the net was like in Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. Remember how Demosthesenes who was really Ender's sister published all those political rants on the net and everyone read her work ? She didn't have to collect micropayments.
I think that in the near term, should web sites resort to micropayments, what will happen is people will write tools to automatically share their browser caches whenever possible and cut down on the hits to the web site enormously. The web site owner won't get enough money to pay for the trouble of setting up the payment system, but on the other hand he won't have the bandwidth bill either. And he will still have the social influence of writing (or editing) material that is read by a lot of people. This multitude of peer-to-peer caches might become pervasive. Look at how articles propagate through news servers.
The tools to do this sort of thing are there now, we just haven't been forced to use them yet. For example, I started work on a script to download the whole of the New York Times online every day and index and archive it so I wouldn't have to pay their archive fees (and so I could also have a better search engine than the one they use). But I also live in a university town where I can go to the library and print out the microfiche for 15 cents, and if I want an archived article that badly often I decide I want a copy of the print version in that format.
Whatever.
I'm about to travel for Thanksgiving and will be away from computers until this article is archived and dead on slashdot . . . but feel free to continue the discussion by sending me email to the rgristroph@yahoo.com address if you wish.
None of the crap on the web is worth paying for. At the price of an ISP connection it's already a rip-off. When you loose anonymity or privacy in order to post, it can be an even worse deal. No one should ever pay even a 10,000th of a cent to read this post. If you think so, stop now, because I promise the rest of it isn't worth it.
Still here, eh ? Think of it like a party or a coffee house or a group of people waiting for the bus. You are willing to listen to a random person come up to and start talking. But when they come up to you with their hand out, it's "Sorry buddy, no spare change here." Communication with other humans instantly becomes degraded in status as soon as money is involved. The exceptions are narrow, such as hard core technical information or economic reports.
If slashdot or some other sites start implementing micropayments, there are two things that can happen:
1) if the system excludes those who are not signed up, then the sub-class of people who do post their will be the extremely annoying, self-important, whiny liberal types. Think of the The Well back in the day, or even to certain extent Kuro5hin today. Expect common posts to be along the lines of "Oh my god, I always listen to NPR, but on the way to work today I accidently hit the wrong button and ended up listening to [insert AM talk show host here], and I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE . . .." Imagine a discussion board completely populated by people like Dave Winer. Expect threads to be along the lines of "all those other non-micropayment sites are filled with hateful, violent, ignorant, gun-toting arab-hating SUV-driving working class people. How can we enlightened micropayers spread the word ?"
2) If the system doesn't exclude people who don't sign up, and the fact that it has a such a system doesn't attract so many people like yourself that it falls into case 1 anyway, then it will be like slashdot except that a segment of the population has agreed to be ripped off. Eventually the ripped off segment will become disillusioned, because inspite of the fact that your paying nothing changes, and will either stop paying or go to site like case 1.
The very promise and hope of the internet is the free communication of all humans with each other. That's what makes it the internet, replete with everything from Dave Winer to goatse.cx and fecaljapan.jpg. If you are worried that there isn't a taxation system in place to pay you a few hundred dollars a month for bandwidth on your site, consider the possibility that humanity as a whole doesn't value your contributions enough to pay for them. There exist plenty of intellegent human beings who are willing to pay in time and even money just to publish and post, because they want people to read what they say and possibly change the world because of it.
After all, you read my post -- you just paid with two minutes of your life and you probably don't even agree with anything I say. Why should you have to pay anything, even a fraction of a cent, more ? I'm satisfied with the two minutes of your attention, and if this post goes in some small way to prevent idiots from investing time and money into a micropayment system doomed to fail as surely as etoys, SCO, and pets.com, then I've done my part to make the economy a bit more efficient.
Stop wanking off about money. It's not about money. That's why the dot-bombs bombed. It's about humans communicating.
At various times people have talked about towing big icebergs from the south up to places where fresh water costs a lot, like California or Saudi Arabia. The iceberg would be moored off shore and surrounded by a floating boom, so that as it melted the fresh water would be trapped (it floats on the salt water before it mixes) and drawn off for use.
An iceberg this big could not be towed. But maybe people could go on board and stud the big thing with masts that had radio and computer controlled sails, and try to move it that way. You have a lot of time, because something of this size would take years to melt even at the equator. A chunk of ice shelf this size will calf off icebergs itself, so the project would have to watch and track them and warn shipping. Moving a chunk of ice shelf this way may be easier than towing a normal iceberg, because it won't roll over as it melts.
Slashdot Mirror
Every watt of electricity you burn in those datacenters costs you double (at least), because you then have to pay the air conditioning to suck that heat out. At the cost there isn't in the electricity to run the AC, it's the initial and maintance cost of a bigger AC.
Otherwise you pay much much more than that to replace failed components.
It's unlikely that power accounts for all of google's choice, but it's total impact is mostly NOT the pure cost of the electricity.
Some of the posters are making arguments about needing to access disks fast, and that implying a RAID which is more expensive because you need more disks, and that is probably closest to the mark.
If getting linux running on machines inside a Fortune 500 company is your pet project, then good luck, and I hope that you find what you need.
.NET doesn't derive from the worry that Fortune 500 companies may not make the most technically sound software choices. In fact, I'm pretty sure that whatever we do Fortune 500 companies will tend to buy over conservative, overly bloated, over priced crap. If Linux or FreeBSD was the only OS out there, they would invent a SCO or IBM to price it higher for them.
.NET version 6.66 which MS changed and the old X11 licensed free .NET doesn't read, and .NET is the only net out there because it became universal when Miguel's software worked on all alternitive OS's . . . . well, you'll have to forgive me for saying that I'd prefer that Art Popp and his Fortune 500 company all went the way of Enron. If it comes to my Freedom or you being able to use cool software at your Fortune 500 client, learn to shake a tin cup, fucker.
.NET/Mono bandwagon now, and dig in my heels just like I delete unread MSOffice attachments, take the lost business and angry frustrated friends it generates, and BE FREE.
But my concern with the licensing of Ximian projects and parts of
My main concern is Freedom, especially my Freedom. If Miguel devotes resources to writing GPL or LGPL code, I am sure those resources are not being used to curtail what I can do. If he writes code under the X11/MIT license, then that code may be used by parties that have shown a consistent inclination to try to limit what I can do with my computers.
So if Art Popp is happy because his job just got easier, great. If I have to look forward to the time several years or a decade hence, when I can't read web pages or emails from my Mom because they are only readable with
Not that I have any real say in the matter -- except one thing: I can refuse to get on
I think I'll write to RMS directly with my concerns.
Then there was that whole stir-up with RMS running for a position on the Gnome board and loosing. I think I recall he made some vague references about being distrubed about the direction Gnome was going, and the need to keep it focused on Freedom.
But RMS seemed concilatory when the non-GPL license was announced.
Can someone with more connections into the Cambridge circle of FSF people comment on what the heck is going on ? Personally I feel disturbed by this .NET focus and the proprietary software from Ximian, enough to start focusing on finding non-de Icaza replacements for tools I depend on (switching from gnucash to SQLledger will be the biggest).
Has de Icaza just lost it and sold out ? Does RMS see .NET as a very big threat, way bigger than everyone else is seeing it, and thus it is worth any strategy at all to open it up ? Can someone fill in with information on the views of the key players ?
I have some of those cue cat devices. Various projects exist on freshmeat to print bar codes.
I'd feel half inclined to do it myself, but I have too many hobby projects needing attention already. Also, I'd use CDs rather than tapes.
I suggest taking a look at floppyfw. They ripped out a lot of the rc.d stuff there to get to a simpler (well, easier to trace through and figure out) initialization scripts.
.iso of it, email me if you are insterested.
I would start with that, and install it on a harddrive, and gradually start adding things until you had all the necessary tools to compile and built a copy of it yourself. Trim down and consolidate the start scripts until you have something you like.
However, I suspect that you will find that the runlevel style initialization scripts are there for a reason. One does need some way to organize all that stuff. You can easily (well, a few weekends and evenings of piddling around) build what you describe. However, you will find that you are re-doing too much of the distro each time you add a package. If other people start using it, and adding packages that you never heard of (like some random database server or something) and start them up automatically, you will swiftly get pissed at the whole situation (especially when they send you email accusing you writing a broken linux or whatever) and decide that the init.d scripts weren't so bad after all.
And about the hundredth time you install something just to find out some arcane library needs and updated version, or the hundreth time you tell some other user that he can't install LyX without having xforms, you will also see the goodness of package system.
Check out a linux based on the BSD ports system, Gentoo I think is the most common one. Maybe that will give you enough to satisfy.
Another route is to stick with DOS, and get the Free Software Foundation's book and CD "GNU Tools for MS-Windows and MS-DOS." This is a set of all the standard GNU tools (emacs, perl, bash, gcc, sed, awk, latex, etc) compiled for DOS and put in a nice package with an installation program. I have purchased several copies of this from the FSF by mail order. If you want a copy of the CD, I may be able to get you the
Oh and one last thing -- whoever modded the parent comment as a troll should be $rbtl'd or whatever it is, or have their account set to put all page-widening posts at +5 Insightful.
I strongly second this recommendation.
Another good one is Nuts and Volts magazine. I have bought a copy of Nuts and Volts every month for about a year now, it's probably time to subscribe.
Depending on what hardware stuff you are into, another site to check out is the the piclist.
For what work I have to do on DOS, I like the "GNU Tools for MS-DOS and MS-Windows" publication by the Free Software Foundation. They recently came out with a second edition. I urge you to buy the book and CD from the FSF, but the .iso of the CD (which has the text of the book) is on gnutella and probably elsewhere too. Leave some copies of the book around, some of the kids might read it.
.o's and links them together, people should be able to take that as a template and do all they need to do. Yes, there will be some time spent learning make and emacs instead of programming, but emacs/vim and make (and gcc) are available for almost any platform the students are likely to encounter, and you will be betraying them as a teacher if you don't teach them stuff they can use.
The development environment should be emacs and Makefiles. Maybe vim instead of emacs. But for the type of projects you would do in a class, the build process won't be that complecated. If you make one Makefile that builds two
Using a PIC 16F877 connected to a MAX232 (serial port) and a pair of receiver/transmitters from Laipac:
http://laipac.com/products/wireless.htm
(I'm using the RLP916A and the TLP916A on that page).
I haven't gotten the radios in yet. I have the other parts though. A transmitter/receiver pair ends up costing $20 including the shipping, the PIC and the MAX232 make up about another $6 if I remember correctly.
If anyone is interested in these, email me in a couple of weeks and see if I got it working.
I would be happy to have the source in assembly. Wouldn't bother me at all. If that's what made it so fast on DOS, it would be worth the effort to make it work on other platforms.
The source code to these old programs is not "next to useless" at all. It would no doubt require some concerted, expert effort to bring it to modern processors and OS's, but you don't have to "reverse engineer" it. After all, this is what the original authors worked from, and it can be pretty messy, but that is not the same as decompiling a binary and working from that.
And finally, I probably would not be interested in a version ported to "modern APIs like DirectX or SDL." I might tolerate something written for X with straight xlib calls (that might be almost as painful), or the GTK or Athena widget set. But I would prefer a console program that can output postscript files to be previewed in another program. (The print preview in WP 5 for DOS is ok.)
If you have the opportunity, find an old 486 or early pentium and load up DRDOS and WP 5. Look at how fast it takes it to fully load a large document, and do a print-preview to see the "graphics" capabilities. Then load up OpenOffice on a 2 GHz linux box with your stop watch running.
I know there was a version of WP that would work in console mode in Linux. Unfortunately it was part of some "professional" edition of the WP package, and I have never been able to get my hands on it.
I've checked with various friends who owned linux versions of WP, the various versions of WP that were released with the boxed versions of some distributions, used bookstores that occasionally had Linux software, etc. No luck yet.
But even so, the whole point would be to get a free software version. Unless the source code is available and unfettered with licenses and threats of legal action, it will just die again, not be ported to new systems and gradually fade away. Finding that copy would be extremely useful to me right now, but it wouldn't solve the problem they way a free software version would.
My first candidate for free source to a discontinued product would be the DOS version of word perfect. The reason why is that I would like a console only (no X) version of WP for linux.
What others ?
If I wanted to fund a terrorist or other nefarious organization, I would not use Paypal, even under the old rules. I would simply incorporate a company which did "cunsulting" and hired other "consultants." Or better yet, was involved in a little cigarette import/export on the side. If even a small portion of Osama bin Laden's billions or millions were in Paypal accounts, those guys would probably be making money.
While I would agree that certain authorities are probably excessively paranoid about any type of anonymous money transfer, I don't think that paypal's actions are explained by that. You can send up to $300 cash by Western Union without providing ID, why wouldn't they go after that first, before they went after all the pathetic little paypal accounts ? Look at postal money orders. The source of funds there is more anonymous than paypal, because it's cash at a post office, where as any paypal money had to enter the system via a known individual.
Why didn't paypal just freeze all non-verified accounts ? Instead, they choose to allow people to put money into them, but not take money out. The FBI, Secret Service, IRS, and others are pretty humourless by the book types; I find it difficult to see them corrupting their anti-terrorism actions by allowing a private company to collect interest off of suspect moneys. If they thought that paypal was a haven for illicit funds, they would simply freeze all non-verified funds in such a way that they could not be claimed as assets by the bank ( x.com in this case ) and weren't earning interest for anyone, except maybe Uncle Sam.
Paypal's action doesn't bear the bureaucratic marks of the three-letter agencies. It does look like an attempt to reserve sums to be used to fund paypal, by making it bureaucratically difficult to withdraw the funds. This behaviour has been documented before, look at paypalsucks.com or other sites. It is no morally different than advertising a mail-in rebate in big print, and then when the customer gets ready to send it it require various documentation they are not likely to have.
The reason why I didn't want to link any bank account is the same reason why I don't allow my employer to direct deposit, why I don't allow the cable or utilities to directly withdraw from my money: to set up such arrangements you have to enter into a non-symmetric agreement, namely, that if they make a mistake and pay you too much or take too little, they get to automatically correct it by withdrawing more from your account, but if the mistake is in their favor not yours, you don't get to automatically do anything, you have to complain and write letters and etc.
Take a close look at your next few phone and cable bills. These guys are not competent enough to have access to my bank account, it is as simple as that. I signed up for AT&T at 22 dollars a month, and my latest bill shows basic service at 34 dollars, with all kinds of features mysteriously appearing. I'll have to do my twice yearly call to them sometime soon, two hours on hold and then cancel everything they've added and complain, with no hope of getting any money back for the overcharges I've already paid.
If you think about it, all money is is tokens to keep track of debts in a big accounting system. That's why it is so easy for banks to handle everything electronicly between them. In it's initial incarnation, paypal offered the promise off allowing free electronic payments (or accounting of debts) between individuals, the classic internet democritization of a previously elite ability. Since they turned into a bunch of grasping corporate theives, it's hard to see what they have to offer any more.
Just remember this . . . it's cheaper to pay someone with a postal money order (75 cents) and a stamp (34 cents) than it is to send money via paypal ( 2.9 percent plus 35 cents). Given that all paypal has to do is a database transaction in their server, why is it cheaper for the USPS to actually deliver a piece of paper ? Come on, a fucking moderation of a comment is database transaction on slashdot, and they make money doing it for free; why does paypal have to charge several dollars per transaction, especially given that they are already earning interest off of my money ?
On Dec. 12th they sent me a letter telling me that they were going to not allow me to take money out of my account as of Dec 13th unless I "verified" my account.
- run).
i n- run). You may also
I have had a paypal account for quite some time. I never connected it to a bank or credit card, because I didn't want to (I have canceled most of my credit cards for charging me "credit protection fees" I didn't want, there's only one left, and consumer banking is also a rip-em-off-by-small-fees industry, so I have to switch banks regularly too.) The manner in which I used paypal was I would wait until someone paid me for lunch or dinner via paypal, and then I would use the money mainly to donate to freenet and dyndns.org and other worthy places.
A roommate paid me rent via paypal one month, and so I was using that account to buy christmas stuff on ebay. I still had about $200 in there when they tried to steal it. Luckily I checked my email before the 24 hour notice was up, and transfered it to someone who had a verified account and I trusted to pay me later.
Paypal used to have a very nice business plan. You could verify or link your account if you wanted, but you didn't have to; there were no fees, and they earned money from the interest of what was in the accounts. I used to purposely keep a little money in there because I figured it would make sure they made money. I don't understand why they couldn't make that work. Instead, they appear to have abandoned that plan altogether, and are focusing on charging fees and becoming an online debit card.
Which would be fine, I suppose, but if you let people accumulate money on the presumption they can spend it, you can't freeze the money and keep it. The "service agreement" or whatever doesn't matter much here, there are certain things which are simply against the law.
For the dubious, here's the email from Paypal:
(MAIL HEADER DELETED TO GET AROUND LAMENESS FILTER)
Dear PayPal Member:
You are receiving this announcement because our records indicate
that:
(asterisk deleted to get around lameness) You have funds in your PayPal account
and
(asterisk deleted to get around lame ass) You do not have a credit card or confirmed bank account
associated with your PayPal account
We want to make sure you are aware of the following policy update,
which affects your PayPal account and was posted on PayPal\222s Policy
Updates web page November 29, 2001.
(LINE OF EQUALS SINGS DELETED IN ATTEMTP TO GET AROUND LAMENESS FILTER)
Date Posted: November 29, 2001
Effective Date: December 13, 2001
To increase the security of the PayPal system, effective December 13,
2001, members will be required to have a credit card or confirmed
bank account with PayPal before they can send any payments, even if
they have funds in their PayPal account.
(ANOTHER LINE OF EQUALS REMOVED. Jeez. How hard to I have to work to make a fucking post ?)
To spend the funds in your PayPal account you need to add a credit
card or a bank account. To add a credit card or bank account, log in
to your PayPal account and follow the simple steps in the Activate
Account box. (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_login
We recommend that you add a bank account so you will be able to spend
the funds in your account and easily transfer funds between your
PayPal account and your bank account.
If you would like to withdraw funds from your PayPal account, the
easiest and fastest way to withdraw funds is to add a bank account.
To add a bank account, login to your PayPal account and follow the
steps in the Activate Account box
(https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_log
request a check by logging in to your PayPal account and clicking on
the Withdraw tab.
Thank you for using PayPal!
The PayPal Team
(LINE OF DASHES DELETED TO GET AROUND ROB MALDA'S ADMISSION THAT MODERATION DOESN'T WORK)
This PayPal notification was sent to rgristroph@yahoo.com because
your account is likely to be impacted by a recent change to our
service. PayPal reserves the right to contact members regarding
important product or policy announcements. To modify your
notification preferences, click here to login to your account.
Replies to this email will not be processed.
Copyright@ 2001 PayPal Inc. All rights reserved. Designated
trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.
--
Happy Happy Joy Joy, I love the lameness filter. Can I post now ? nope. Maybe I should past some random crap in here to bring the average up. Or put every character on a separate line like the page-lengthening guy. Please rob, goddamn I just wanna post this. Maybe that is enough. No it is not. Perhaps I should just give up on including the mail header in the post, but I think it gives more authenticity. Probably no one will question the accuracy of my post, except of course the lameness filter. Does not the bugtracker on sourceforge have all kinds of bugs related to the lameness filter ? Perhaps everytime we hit it, we should just mail the post to the slashdot editors and ask them to record it as a bug. Ok, delete some shit and add more text down here. Ratio ok yet ? No it is not. Somebody help me, I'm lame ! Jesus H. Christ in a horse manger, what does it take ?
I think a more realistic goal to hope for is the removal of all copyright privildges (i.e., it would enter the public domain) on particular pieces of code that were part of an illegal action by Microsoft. For example, it is conceivable to immagine a court rulling that because Microsoft illegally tied (using technological means) X version of IE and X version of Windows95, the source code for those works will be removed from copyright and allowed into the public domain just as if the copyright had expired.
to finally get off my ass and send my own. I'm mailing it via USPS, but I'll also email a copy to make sure it gets there before the deadline in early January.
6 3. htm}, the proposed settlement
. htm}, the Competitive
. htm}, as
Here's mine:
\documentclass{letter}
\begin{document}
\address{Robert G. Ristroph \\
11612 Hidden Quail \\
Austin, TX 78758 }
\signature{Robert G. Ristroph}
\begin{letter}{ Renata B. Hesse \\
Antitrust Division \\
U.S. Department of Justice \\
601 D Street NW \\
Suite 1200 \\
Washington, DC 20530-0001 }
\opening{Dear Ms. Hesse,}
I am writing with regard to the Justice Department's proposed settlement with
Microsoft. I believe that this settlement should be scrapped and completely
rewritten. Most of the ``restrictions'' placed on Microsoft are already
illegal; what few restrictions are left are impossible to enforce and seem
designed to produce more legal disputes rather than resolve them; and the
proposed enforcement mechanism is a ludicrous embarrassment. In addition to
scrapping this proposed settlement, any payment or further employment of the
authors should be re-evaluated in light of this idiocy.
I have read the original complaint of United States and the several States at
\texttt{http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f1700/17
at \texttt{http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495
Impact Statement at \texttt{http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495
well as numerous other sources including the findings of fact and other
documents.
My own injury by Microsoft's illegal actions comes from Microsoft's agreements
with OEM's which forced my employer to pay for Windows when buying a new
computer from Dell, which we had no plans to use Windows, intending it for
Linux. This was supposedly addressed in a prior case to the present one, and
yet to this day the same hardware without a Microsoft license has the same cost.
I wish to examine the elements of the proposed agreement item by item, and then
propose an outline of an alternative settlement.
A. That Microsoft will not retaliate against OEMs for distributing non-Microsoft
software. This is already prohibited by law, given Microsoft's monopoly.
The proposed settlement can not consist of Microsoft agreeing to follow the
law in the future; like other companies in the United States, it has to
follow the law regardless of this settlement.
B. That Microsoft make public it's licensing agreements and offer the same terms
to everyone. This is the only part of the proposed settlement makes sense,
however, OEMs have shown in the past they were willing to collaborate in
Microsoft's illegal activities. Should Microsoft offer an OEM a secrete
payback or special deal, the cooperation of the OEM will make this section
difficult to enforce.
C. That Microsoft cannot restrict certain OEM software through agreements. This
is already illegal, like A.
D. Some meaningless nonsense not worthy of comment or the paper it is printed
on.
E. That communications protocols in Microsoft software be publicly available.
In light of Microsoft's previous behavior in exploiting secrete calls in
it's software, all of it's source code should be available for public
examination. The suggestion that only ``communications protocols'' be public
is problematic because it leaves open to dispute what consists of a
communications protocol. This is foolish given Microsoft's previous
self-serving interpretations of court orders.
F. That Microsoft will not retaliate against software vendors for competing
against them. This is already against the law given that Microsoft is a
monopoly.
G. That fixed percentage distribution agreements be banned. This is already
against the law. The exceptions listed in this paragraph are also against
the law, creating the suggestion that the United States will enter into an
agreement with Microsoft to allow it to break the law in some cases.
H. That OEMs and users are allowed to configure the Microsoft software they
buy. This is vague and confusing because it is difficult to precisely
describe what consists of configuring software, and thus impossible to
reliably enforce. In a competitive market it would be the natural case, and
the proposed settlement should focus on restoring competition.
I. That Microsoft offer licenses to ``intellectual property'' necessary to allow
others to exercise ``alternatives provided under this final judgment.''
The reference to alternatives provided to others contradicts the final
section of the proposed settlement, which explicitly denies that the final
settlement gives any rights to third parties. Even aside from that, this
section probably denies behavior already illegal, is riddled with
exceptions, vague, and seems designed to produce legal action rather than
remedy.
J. A section devoted wholly to exceptions for Microsoft, as if there where not
enough already.
The Enforcement Authority:
A. Access to source code is probably one of the best remedies. The exceptions
and limitation of this access to a committee are silly.
B. The Technical Committee. It has too few members, it should be composed of
Officers of a United States Federal Court in order to make it's requests
immediately enforceable through Contempt hearings, and the gag on public
statements renders the whole committee useless. The further restriction that
the testimony of this muzzled and hobbled committee not be admissible in
court is a bit like shooting the deer after it's tied down with it's throat
cut.
C. The Microsoft Compliance Officer. This section is nonsense. Other
companies manage to obey the law without the use of a special office. If
Microsoft needs one they can implement it without a judgment.
D. Voluntary Dispute Resolution. This section seems dedicated to stipulating
that various parties send each other letters before seeking court hearings, a
common practice. 4(d) guts all enforcement power from the proposed
judgment, and suggests that the Attorneys for the Justice Department don't
believe in their own system of courts.
Third Party Rights:
This section is in contradiction with other references to the submission of
complaints to the Technical Committee and the requirement that Microsoft offer
``intellectual property'' licenses to the third parties so that they can pursue
the alternatives guaranteed them in this proposed final judgment.
In summary, this proposed final judgment is a poor sham for a capitulation by
the Plaintiffs. It's not even a good surrender, because it's vagueness and
self-contradictions guarantee more legal action; if we must capitulate, at least
we should save on legal costs. It also completely fails to disguise the
capitulation in any way. This is why whoever wrote it should be fired, even if
the Justice Department unwisely chooses to fail to enforce the law as applies to
Microsoft.
A real final judgment, which might have the chance of remedying the situation,
would have to be in some way ``self enforcing.'' By ``self enforcing'' I mean
that the remedy by it's nature should preclude further legal wrangling and
evasion efforts by Microsoft. Stipulations on Microsoft's future behavior
inherently have to be enforced, and thus are not well suited to this case.
Furthermore, when the proposed judgment stipulates that behavior already
illegal be banned and then suggests exceptions, the Plaintiffs are acquiescing in
further law breaking by Microsoft.
An example of a ``self enforcing'' remedy would be denying Microsoft copyright
protection. No Technical Committee is required; all that is needed is to reject
out of hand cases of copyright enforcement that Microsoft brings. Thus,
revoking copyright privileges for some portion of the works that Microsoft used
to violate the law might be an appropriate remedy. Or perhaps Microsoft could
post substantial bonds against it's future behavior.
Many of the major flaws in this proposed final settlement result from the
needless use of vague and disputable terms, when simple and undisputable ones
would do.
Replace all references to ``Microsoft Middleware'' ``Windows Operating System
Product'' and such with the simple phrases ``products of Microsoft'' and
``products of third parties.'' Avoid even the use the term ``software
products,'' as Microsoft would produce hardware required to run their products
and then violate the agreement. Be sure the phrase ``products'' is defined to
mean anything Microsoft does, including services.
Replace all references to ``ISVs, IHVs, ICDs, OEMs'' and such with the phrase
``any third party.'' Quibbling over which member of the alphabet soup a
particular entity fell under is thus eliminated. The final judgment should
require no differentiation between the various consumers and companies
interacting with Microsoft. This also remedies the fault that the current
proposed judgment allows Microsoft to exempt any third party from the benefits
of what legal behavior is required by claiming they do not have a viable
business plan.
I hope you find these suggestions helpful in writing a real judgment.
\closing{Sincerely,}
\end{letter}
\end{document}
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm
Part of the case against Microsoft is that certain things are illegal once you are a monopoly, even if you got that monopoly legally, indeed even if the government personally handed it to you, as in the case of a public utility.
If Microsoft is a monopoly, then Microsoft cannot require OEMs to buy a license for windows for every computer shipped that has only linux on it. Regardless of how Microsoft got that way.
Lawsuits didn't matter before, why should they start mattering now ? Especially since any major hole in passport will likely come with a convient scapegoat, a hacker, all the better if you haven't actually caught him and can make him out to be bigger and more dangerous than he is.
The customers only indirectly bear the cost of fraud, so it's not like people will flee passport after being burned.
When credit card fraud happens, it is often the merchant who gets burned. It is conceivable (although in my opinion, unlikely) that merchants might stop using the passport service after seeing a higher rate of fraud with it, the way some online merchants have switched to or away from paypal in response to fraud.
The credit card company can carry the cost of fraud sometimes. Visa and Mastercard are looking into systems that would be more secure, and offering to accept the cost of fraud in order to convince merchants to use them. If cost of fraud is high enough, those companies might try to stop their cards from being used on passport, or charge a special fee to those customers who do use it.
I'm not arguing that the customer's should bear the cost of the fraud. The one person who doesn't have much effect on the overall security of the system is the customer; in general the cost of fraud should be born by those who have the ability to fix the security -- this creates a system in which appropriate resources are directed to the problem.
But one part of the whole credit card system is the fact that it hides the cost of the system from customers. Those 1.5 to 2.5 percent fees on every credit card transaction are carefully hidden from the consumer. It was at least once true that credit card companies would refuse a merchant who simply tacked on the fee like a slaes tax. (PC's For Everyone in Cambridge Mass. used to be a counter example.)
Because the nature of credit card business is to invisibly pass the cost on ( and not just to it's own customers, mind you . . . since the merchant can't charge that 2.5 percent to the customer's who use credit cards, he raises all prices slightly, so you pay even if you use cash ) it is well suited to passing on the cost of fraud in a similarly undetectable way.
I don't see any reason why cost of fraud on a weak passport system simply won't be spread around to all of us, even those who don't use it. Think of it like another windows tax -- you pay Microsoft if you order a computer without windows, if that OEM is selling Windows to any other customers; you pay Microsoft if you buy anything from anyone who accepts passport from other customers. Welcome to the new world order.
But there is one thing that Access did do, and that is it made (mildly) complecated database queries available to the unwashed non-programming masses. Ok, it wasn't Access that did it first, it was probably hypercard, (hey, remember this cool story about the guy who used hypercard to extract unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls from a consordance?) or even something earlier like the first ingres, but the fact that is that by using Access dumb people can do things that they couldn't otherwise.
It's true that a php/apache/postgres system is better, but it also makes those people dependent on us to set up apache, php, and postgres. It may also make them have to figure out how to structure their queries in php or some other text interface instead of clicking and grunting.
There is a definite need for a system that presents a click-and-drool interface to suck in large amounts of data and parse it (with a gui based fill-in-the-feilds manner of making the conditions or regexps) and then present the results in enticing graphs. It doesn't have to do any network stuff, it can simply be a single user manipulating a file. The type of users I'm talking about often use sneaker net or email attachements for all file transfers inspite of the existence of database servers and networked drives.
Every time I research this I'm left feeling dissatisfied, because it seems that someone could wire/kludge together a system that was a locally running apache (even in userspace, talking only to the local user that started it) running a pretty generic php interface talking to mySQL or postgres. The interface would have to allow you to save queries somehow, and do all the other things that Access people are used to. Even an idiot like me could probably wire together a buggy piece of shit in a week or so, so I would expect some admin at a low-budget shop such as a school or non-profit had already wired that together. I can't believe I'm the first on to think of this.
Since I last tried out various things, I've discovered MySQL Navigator. Has anyone had any experience giving this to Access-addicted users to see what they say ? The screenshots seem full of pointy-clicky stuff to keep them happy.
I just went to devx.com and the longer link you offered with no problem. It's an ugly site, with lots of colors and ads, but it loaded up just fine.
I'm not even using 9.6, I'm using build 200111109, a couple of weeks old.
I mostly agree with your observations on editting and the importance of quality content and how it is formed. I agree that people don't realize how much value a good editor brings. I don't see how any of those observations suggest micropayment, or any payment, systems are necessary or desirable or likely to happen.
It will fail for the same reason that paying fees to download mp3's will fail -- people won't do it, and technology gives them another option. The infrastructure of any micropayment system will annoy enough people who are necessary to the survival of the site (as audience or creators/posters) that it will fail and the free sites, or usenet, will succeed.
Just because you think we all SHOULD reward those "busking" (is that what it's called ? those guys should be shot) subway artists or web posters doesn't mean we will. You might say "how will our culture survive?" or "without it the web will die!" or whatever, but it's like a little kid who doesn't believe in the speed of light because otherwise how will Capt. Kirk get the to the stars ? I don't know how humans will go to the stars or what type of net we will create, but micropayments will be a rare curiosity on it, and our spaceships will not go faster than light.
If you want to think of what the net will be like in 30 years, think of what the net was like in Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. Remember how Demosthesenes who was really Ender's sister published all those political rants on the net and everyone read her work ? She didn't have to collect micropayments.
I think that in the near term, should web sites resort to micropayments, what will happen is people will write tools to automatically share their browser caches whenever possible and cut down on the hits to the web site enormously. The web site owner won't get enough money to pay for the trouble of setting up the payment system, but on the other hand he won't have the bandwidth bill either. And he will still have the social influence of writing (or editing) material that is read by a lot of people. This multitude of peer-to-peer caches might become pervasive. Look at how articles propagate through news servers.
The tools to do this sort of thing are there now, we just haven't been forced to use them yet. For example, I started work on a script to download the whole of the New York Times online every day and index and archive it so I wouldn't have to pay their archive fees (and so I could also have a better search engine than the one they use). But I also live in a university town where I can go to the library and print out the microfiche for 15 cents, and if I want an archived article that badly often I decide I want a copy of the print version in that format.
Whatever.
I'm about to travel for Thanksgiving and will be away from computers until this article is archived and dead on slashdot . . . but feel free to continue the discussion by sending me email to the rgristroph@yahoo.com address if you wish.
None of the crap on the web is worth paying for. At the price of an ISP connection it's already a rip-off. When you loose anonymity or privacy in order to post, it can be an even worse deal. No one should ever pay even a 10,000th of a cent to read this post. If you think so, stop now, because I promise the rest of it isn't worth it.
Still here, eh ? Think of it like a party or a coffee house or a group of people waiting for the bus. You are willing to listen to a random person come up to and start talking. But when they come up to you with their hand out, it's "Sorry buddy, no spare change here." Communication with other humans instantly becomes degraded in status as soon as money is involved. The exceptions are narrow, such as hard core technical information or economic reports.
If slashdot or some other sites start implementing micropayments, there are two things that can happen:
1) if the system excludes those who are not signed up, then the sub-class of people who do post their will be the extremely annoying, self-important, whiny liberal types. Think of the The Well back in the day, or even to certain extent Kuro5hin today. Expect common posts to be along the lines of "Oh my god, I always listen to NPR, but on the way to work today I accidently hit the wrong button and ended up listening to [insert AM talk show host here], and I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE . . . ." Imagine a discussion board completely populated by people like Dave Winer. Expect threads to be along the lines of "all those other non-micropayment sites are filled with hateful, violent, ignorant, gun-toting arab-hating SUV-driving working class people. How can we enlightened micropayers spread the word ?"
2) If the system doesn't exclude people who don't sign up, and the fact that it has a such a system doesn't attract so many people like yourself that it falls into case 1 anyway, then it will be like slashdot except that a segment of the population has agreed to be ripped off. Eventually the ripped off segment will become disillusioned, because inspite of the fact that your paying nothing changes, and will either stop paying or go to site like case 1.
The very promise and hope of the internet is the free communication of all humans with each other. That's what makes it the internet, replete with everything from Dave Winer to goatse.cx and fecaljapan.jpg. If you are worried that there isn't a taxation system in place to pay you a few hundred dollars a month for bandwidth on your site, consider the possibility that humanity as a whole doesn't value your contributions enough to pay for them. There exist plenty of intellegent human beings who are willing to pay in time and even money just to publish and post, because they want people to read what they say and possibly change the world because of it.
After all, you read my post -- you just paid with two minutes of your life and you probably don't even agree with anything I say. Why should you have to pay anything, even a fraction of a cent, more ? I'm satisfied with the two minutes of your attention, and if this post goes in some small way to prevent idiots from investing time and money into a micropayment system doomed to fail as surely as etoys, SCO, and pets.com, then I've done my part to make the economy a bit more efficient.
Stop wanking off about money. It's not about money. That's why the dot-bombs bombed. It's about humans communicating.
. . . really does cost two cents. Paypal me at rgristroph@yahoo.com.
If you don't, stop and think and maybe you'll see why micropayments won't work.
What's the name of the company and when did this happen ?
An iceberg this big could not be towed. But maybe people could go on board and stud the big thing with masts that had radio and computer controlled sails, and try to move it that way. You have a lot of time, because something of this size would take years to melt even at the equator. A chunk of ice shelf this size will calf off icebergs itself, so the project would have to watch and track them and warn shipping. Moving a chunk of ice shelf this way may be easier than towing a normal iceberg, because it won't roll over as it melts.
Towing icebergs to get fresh water: http://www.antarctica.org/UK/Envirn/pag/glaces_UK/ oceanes_UK/remorquer_UK.htm.
This has happened before: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/07/24/171420 0.