If you are designing a system which has serious consequences of failure (e.g. hospital monitors, flight or air traffic control, power grid, etc), you have to be careful. Perhaps even paranoid.
Putting such a system on the Internet is simply irresponsible, especially where lives are at stake. The military knows this pretty well. The civilian sector... well, I would hope they understand this too. But it wouldn't surprise me to see some problem areas.
These patent related threads all have a few things in common. A quick summary:
- The patent system (as opposed to the copyright system) concentrates more on purpose, than implementation. If you own a patent, you still control the invention, even if someone writes a "clean room" implementation.
- U.S. courts have more-or-less determined that you can't do much of anything patent-related without an attorney that specializes in patent law. Judges believe that Joe Average can't possibly understand it well enough on his own.
- Patent portfolios are an important part of big business. If you don't patent something remotely related to what you are doing, you risk having someone else grab it.
- Patent requests are not investigated in enough detail before being granted. As shown on Slashdot, many patents are granted for things that are quite obvious, or things that are supposed to be unpatentable (e.g. mathematical algorithms).
- Patent expirations last far too long for the computer industry.
So with that little summary in mind, I can see a few ways to improve the system.
Make patents easily searchable, even by a non-lawyer (reduce redundancy). Make them much more difficult to obtain, not by money, but by scrutiny (emphasize REAL inventions). Give an equal opportunity to the basement inventor and the corporation. It should not require an armload of cash and lawyers to obtain one, if your invention is sound.
If these steps could be taken in good faith, I think the patent system could live up to its original intent, and benefit inventors without harming the public.
I guess I should prefix this with "I am not a physicist, but..."
Consider this quote from the article:
However, small earthquakes, acoustic noises and laser fluctuations can cause a disturbance at one site that could lead scientists to believe they have detected a gravity wave.
Now recall that Hanford was one of the nation's big plutonium production sites back in the day. There's still alot of waste around the site. It is also near a river (acoustic noise).
Certainly these factors are probably much less significant than, say, earthquake-prone California. But if I were tasked with selecting a site, I think I'd prefer somewhere flat and boring. The less disturbances the better. Like I said, though, I'm not a physicist, so perhaps they feel that they can compensate for these factors.
I think the U.S. government has shown little evidence of trustworthiness. THAT is the issue and that is why privacy advocates hate this sort of thing. The government thinks it knows what's best for the peons, and be damned if they want to run their own lives.
Stop for a moment and imagine the government's ideal scenario. They want unhampered access to as many forms of communication as possible. At the same time, they want people to think their communications are secure. That way, people will talk openly, and they can gather more information on the bad guys.
So they say.
How far does it go, though? Take a few sample cases...
The FBI has evidence of a guy sharing kiddie porn over the net. Instead of busting him right away, they listen in, and get enough evidence to nail his circle of friends who are involved. Pretty straightforward - mission accomplished. I think most would agree that's a job well done.
Another federal organization suspects a group of "religious" fanatics of hoarding weapons and plotting generally Bad Things(tm). They tap in on conversations to prepare an assault. Now if laws were being violated, ok. But it begins to blur the line a bit eh?
During an information sweep, gathering from many source emissions (Echelon?) another government organization hears you joke about the president's life. Not so funny when they show up at your door...
You're a witness to a crime, but fearful of testifying (for whatever reason). The government digs up past info on you and "leans" on you, even though you were not involved in the crime in question. (This has really happened). Is that a fair use of wiretapping info?
Frankly, I think the government can shove wiretapping up its ass. Joe Average is the one who really gets the brunt of their scrutiny. Is our society so paranoid that we must spy on our own people? That's not the kind of life I want, although it gets more that way every day.
Since it appears likely that Judge Jackson will produce a result favorable to the Justice Department, the issue here is moot. Microsoft would be the one filing for an appeal, not the Justice Department.
Microsoft has nothing to gain by appealing directly to the Supreme Court. ANY court has a good chance of being more favorable to them than Judge Jackson. By appealing to the Supreme Court, and being heard, Microsoft merely risks losing the final battle. They are in a much better position if they drag this thing out.
You won't see a major shift in motherboard design until both of these factors are at least moderately better with a non-legacy system.
Right now (yes I realize this is a big generalization) - MOST ISA cards cost less than the equivalent PCI card. Likewise, ISA does not incur much of a performance hit with many of the peripherals. For example, sound cards, 10 MBps network cards, and modems / other serial devices will all work fine in an ISA slot.
Speaking of modems, I believe there was a recent discussion on Slashdot about them. There was note of the fact that few, if any PCI modems are made that are not Winmodems. So if you're rigging up an all PCI system with one of those, are you really gaining performance? I doubt it.
So in order to maintain what amounts to a marginal performance boost, you're going to use an external modem. This is, once again, more expensive, which goes back to my initial point.
I can think of much better ways to improve my system performance for the same amount of money.
It discusses what to do about computer PERIPHERALS just so the movie industry won't have to worry about pirates?
Give me a break.
"Average Joe" has been copying VHS tapes for years. That certainly didn't stop the huge growth of the home video-rental and sale industry. It seems that all of a sudden, just because a computer is involved, there is rampant paranoia about crackers and pirates.
The article itself admits that stopgap measures are unlikely to have any effect on the professional pirates. By this, I mean the people who would have the resources to copy the original packaging and sell it as the real thing. This is what the industry should worry about.
Crippling MY hardware just because I MIGHT use it illegally is bullshit. Kindof goes hand in hand with the industry "tax" on items like CD-R discs and cassette tapes. They have more than enough money already. Quit whining about the smidgeon of a percent of people who:
a) actually have the hardware necessary to copy DVDs,
b) actually have the bandwidth to share them on the internet, and
c) actually find this an entertaining pastime even though it is far more costly than buying the actual DVD release.
The whole recording industry, both video and audio makes me sick.
This article gave me the impression that there are folks who stand firmly against the idea of Internet voting, simply because of who has access to the Internet. There were little blurbs in there about 'mostly white', and reservations not even having complete telephone coverage yet.
So what?
If such a system were implemented, it would have to coexist with traditional voting. I think the main idea here, is to get more people to vote. The more options you provide, the better, in my opinion.
Does Internet voting discriminate against those without Internet access? Sure, but there ARE OTHER WAYS TO VOTE. Similarily, do absentee ballots discriminate against homeless people who don't have a mailing address? I think we need to worry a little less about demographics and worry more about the hugely apathetic voter-turnout levels in many areas of the nation.
This article seems to blur the difference between geeks, and the technology industry. Let's be honest: these are NOT the same thing. The companies mentioned (3COM, for example) certainly employ geeks. But I seriously doubt these are the people behind the lobbying efforts.
I can't speak for every coder, or even most of them. But for myself: I just want the government to stay out of my hair. Let me do my job, which I enjoy. Tax me fairly. Give me a channel to voice my opinion to my representative. And just be straight up about policy and don't lie to me.
Hmm I guess there ARE some things that need work eh? However, for those things, I trust grass roots efforts and non-profit organizations more than any Silicon Valley corporation trying to lobby the government. Lend support to groups like the EFF (or whichever ones you feel best represent your interests).
Large corporations, on the other hand, are only looking out for #1. If you think for a moment that they are lobbying for the greater-good, geek-rights, or any "noble" cause, you're fooling yourself. Their lobbying dollars are usually spent only when it will increase their profit.
Yes they've written some interesting software. So have alot of other people.
One of the cDc guys even said something to the effect of "no matter how good you are, there is always someone better out there". Maybe they should listen to themselves and drop the attitude.
What about the claim that BO2K shows how "wide-open" your machine really is? Give me a break. That's like saying "Hey - your Linux machine is wide open because I can install a daemon on it if I am root".
Whatever.
These guys get way too much attention turned their way just because they can spout a few bad words and act like they are l33t. I tend to be more impressed with people who contribute software without caring who notices.
This type of attack has been going on for YEARS. IRC Botnets are a good example of a coordinated method of attack. And the attack isn't necessarily limited to the IRC environment.
I suppose I'm not surprised that it took this long for the government to start recognizing distributed attacks...
I really hope the FCC stays levelheaded about this and realizes what is really going on here. As the article stated, the phone companies FREQUENTLY lobby to get this ball rolling. So far, the FCC has turned them away. Lucky for us so far that the FCC seems more impervious to pressure than our Congress.
However, take a close look at what the phone companies are saying. Basically, their complaint is that phone network X is being congested by too much modem usage, where the average call length is longer than a voice call.
But, BOTH types of calls are circuit-switched. So the congestion has been created by the phone companies themselves. They oversell phone lines to their customers - i.e. many more people have a 2nd analog line these days.
If the phone companies were really serious about reducing their system usage, they would take action on a couple of fronts.
First, if anyone requests a 2nd phone line, offer FREE voice mail service as an alternative. In other words, a way for people to leave them a message when they are online. Second, the phone companies should place ISDN at a competitve price. I don't understand the technical stuff behind it (someone fill in?) but it seems to me that a digital connection would be less of a drain on the phone network than an analog one.
But let's face it: the phone companies don't WANT to relieve the usage. They want to increase their revenue.
So, let's think. Will I be able to get Mozilla without getting Netscape 5? Yes.
Will it be stable? The Mozilla dev team has made improvements, but they still haven't reached this goal. Or will AOL take an unstable Mozilla and only put forth the polishing work for Netscape, leaving the open-source Mozilla to fend for itself? Hmm.
Will AOL's feature additions to Netscape be merged back into Mozilla? Hmm.
Will a free, open-source Mozilla be able to contain all the necessary parts? (i.e. go read the About page on Netscape and see how much technology is from 3rd parties). Hmm.
Let's think... the picture's not as simple as you would paint it to be.
Mozilla may not be dead, but the browser war was over long ago. IE isn't a perfect browser, but neither is Netscape. However, that's enough for Microsoft to win. They have the dominant OS, and a "good-enough" browser packaged with it. Why should I install another app to duplicate functionality on my machine? And I used to be a die-hard Netscape fan. I would imagine the family purchasing a new computer wouldn't even think of Netscape.
And then, there's my other beef: AOL. I hold little respect for this company, and yes, maybe I fear their intentions a bit. Similar to MS. But look what they've snatched up:
Winamp ICQ Netscape
You better believe that they'll try to merge functionality into Netscape 5.0. Probably more AIM crap and advertising and who-knows-what-else that I don't want to install. Netscape 4.5+ was annoying in this fashion due to their blatant attempts to direct everyone to Netcenter. I still use 4.08 as my browser of choice on Linux because of this.
I'm hoping that Mozilla will be available separately from Netscape, so that I can use a less commercially-tainted browser. These big companies fighting over us peons really gets on my nerves sometimes.
In that regard, I'd be happy to pay the Opera guys 30 bucks if the Linux version was mature. At least its a chance to get away from the bloat. Hmm I haven't checked that lately... maybe I should go do that.
This is just my perspective, so take it with a grain of salt.
In order to code for both desktops, you have to look at what they are each built upon.
GNOME -> GTK+ -> X KDE -> QT -> X
Ok that's really simplified and leaves out stuff like imlib. But you get the idea.
GTK seems like an acceptable level to work with. Why? Well, GTK is required in order to use the GIMP, which many people have on their system. I can't think of an app as popular as the GIMP that is written for QT (besides KDE itself).
So there are probably alot of KDE systems out there that ALSO have GTK installed. I think it's less likely that a given GNOME machine will have QT installed.
Of course writing for GTK doesn't get you alot of the cool features for a particular desktop. I agree that it would be nice if there was a better cross-desktop development tool.
Any deuterium (aka heavy water) DOES provide neutrons, in addition to the slowdown behavior described. This probably isn't the case here, though. However, some reactors use heavy water as the moderator in order to decrease the U-235 purity required to sustain a chain reaction. I believe Canada uses such reactors. Low U-235 purity means you can't make weapons with it, which is a good thing politically, and security-wise.
For just everyday use (and not this usability study) - Microsoft doesn't really care what OS their employees use as long as they can perform their job functions. You can get quite a bit of functionality on their network with a Linux machine, especially with Samba.
The only thorn in its side that I heard of was that Linux didn't have an equivalent to the MS Proxy Client. I'm not sure if that has changed these days (someone chime in here?). So you couldn't really access the internet, except when web browsing.
But you could still use Netscape of course, and anything else provided it was not illegal software. Microsoft certainly endorses their own products, but if an employee feels more comfortable using Linux, and is still productive, then Microsoft doesn't care.
Just don't try calling their support desk for help;)
I read through many of the questions in their FAQ, which immediately threw more questions into my mind. The people involved in this project seem to have a good level of knowledge with regards to space travel and the physics behind it. This is good, of course, since I'd certainly want qualified people if I was going to take this sort of vacation.
But where is the business model? I saw estimates for the feasibility study, project design, and testing. A couple year span is given for each. Where are they getting these numbers? Since they estimate the project to run over a billion dollars, where do they plan to get the capital?
And who's going to risk providing venture capital without a solid plan? They say that they plan to make an immediate profit through the entertainment angle. Well that's fine and dandy, but there is no mention of the overhead associated with doing this. This isn't like a standard vacation. You need lawyers to deal with possible accidents. Special security people would need to protect the enclosed environment from some nutcase going postal.
In short, private enterprise has pros and cons. They avoid the overhead of a government project. However, the people they will be transporting do not have the same level of expertise, trustworthiness, and professionalism as traditional astronauts. This adds to the expense.
Don't get me wrong - I think it would be a beautiful thing if we each had the opportunity to experience space travel. But these guys have their heads in the clouds, and really need to formulate a solid business model before they have any hope of getting off the ground (sorry that was kinda bad;))
Truly, my question posed here is the crux of the issue. I have to start this post with a nice standard disclaimer:
I am not a lawyer, but...
First, I believe that given their current track record in Judge Jackson's courtroom, Microsoft will receive a ruling against them. However, the really interesting part will be seeing WHY this ruling was made.
Microsoft will, no doubt, appeal the case. The details of the ruling in Judge Jackson's court will play a large part in determining how well they do in the appeals court. Right now, Microsoft feels that Judge Jackson is very biased against them (side note: gee I wonder why?). Therefore, their strategy is to assume that they will lose this round. They say that they are attempting to build a good basis to defend themselves in an appeal.
So back to my original question: when do you label something a monopoly? Well here's one definition:
MONOPOLY - This word has various significations. 1. It is the abuse of free commerce by which one or more individuals have procured the advantage of selling alone all of a particular kind of merchandise, to the detriment of the public.
All combinations among merchants to raise the price of merchandise to the injury of the public, is also said to be a monopoly.
A monopoly is also an institution or allowance by a grant from the sovereign power of a state, by commission, letters patent, or otherwise, to any person, or corporation, by which the exclusive right of buying, selling, making, working, or using anything, is given.
(source: http://192.41.4.29/def2/m138.htm)
Well let's cross of the 3rd one - that's easy, since the government does not say you have to buy Windows.
By the first definition, Microsoft COULD be in trouble. No, they didn't sell ALL of the operating system software, or browser software. But at what percentage do you draw the line? And can you prove it was detrimental to consumers? That's the tricky part.
The second definition COULD be used against them also. Once again, it is tricky to build this case, though. Did Microsoft use their monopoly to cause a price increase? Hmm. Do you include indirect profits? (e.g. give away a free browser, or sell your OS for cheap, then turn around and charge big server prices, since your Windows machines need a Windows server). Now, that's not necessarily true of course - just an example though.
Notice throughout this definition, though, that the word monopoly is really unrelated to whether or not you hurt your competitors. You can play dirty all you want as long as you aren't hurting the public, and you do, in fact, have competition.
Don't get me wrong - I think Microsoft's business practices are dirty, and they flex their muscle too much. But other companies (AOL and Sun, for example) can and do play the same way, given the chance.
Microsoft will probably lose this round with the DOJ, but I think in the end, after all the appeals and such, it will be very difficult to win a case against Microsoft, stating that they are a monopoly.
Unfortunately, the U.S. legislature is fairly clueless when it comes to cryptography.
Crypto is used by human rights groups. It is despised by the US Government. Draw your own conclusion.
Crypto is used by criminals. It is despised by the US Government. Draw your own conclusion.
As you can see, these statements are fairly worthless. The stereotypical Congressman is simply going to listen to whichever bit of advice seems most likely to garner votes. So he has people like Louis Freeh and Janet Reno whispering in his ear about the evils of encryption. Criminals abroad MUST NOT be allowed to operate without our surveillance, or so they say.
Except, of course, as we all know - encryption technology is already widely available outside the U.S. And then there's the old saying about "criminalize guns, and only criminals will have guns".
But if you want to really frighten yourself, turn on CSPAN sometime and see if you can find a Congressional proceding related to crypto. The sheer cluelessness will astound you. And these are the people making decisions for an entire nation.
Many of these congressmen honestly think that they are doing things that are in the best interest of protecting American citizens. Unfortunately they often become too separated from their constituents. But I wouldn't label them all as malicious, or traitors. The real criminals are the people behind the scenes, whispering their own agendas at the legislators, and stifling the voice of the American voters.
Just a small note (it's been awhile) - but as I recall, you could set up a mask so that SLiRP would work properly over a connection that was not 8-bit clean. I don't remember the parameter off the top of my head but it isn't difficult.
I'll probably get moderated down for my blasphemy, but I really don't see Java becoming much of a threat to Microsoft. I don't think Java is dying anytime soon, either - but if Sun were to make the hands-down, "fastest" Java, I doubt it would really affect Microsoft.
The problem for Java, is that cross-platform capability has a way of limiting what it can do. Unfortunately, IMO, Sun misread the demands of the industry. Sure, there are many shops out there which use both Unix and Win32 systems. But given a type of computer (workstation, server, whatever) - you'll find that they are often all using the same platform within an organization.
But, people say, Java also fills a need for rapid, safe application development. No mucking about with pointers and such. Less mistakes = more productivity. Certainly, that is true, and people are relatively expensive compared to hardware. So the runtime speed / development speed tradeoff is often a good one.
However, Microsoft recognizes this very well. They will certainly market something to fill the gap (aka Cool). They aren't really interested in cross-platform support, so odds are, whatever they implement is going to blow Java out of the water, in both speed and capability, on a Win32 platform.
Whether customers will jump onboard or not remains to be seen.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are designing a system which has serious consequences of failure (e.g. hospital monitors, flight or air traffic control, power grid, etc), you have to be careful. Perhaps even paranoid.
Putting such a system on the Internet is simply irresponsible, especially where lives are at stake. The military knows this pretty well. The civilian sector... well, I would hope they understand this too. But it wouldn't surprise me to see some problem areas.
Best regards,
SEAL
These patent related threads all have a few things in common. A quick summary:
- The patent system (as opposed to the copyright system) concentrates more on purpose, than implementation. If you own a patent, you still control the invention, even if someone writes a "clean room" implementation.
- U.S. courts have more-or-less determined that you can't do much of anything patent-related without an attorney that specializes in patent law. Judges believe that Joe Average can't possibly understand it well enough on his own.
- Patent portfolios are an important part of big business. If you don't patent something remotely related to what you are doing, you risk having someone else grab it.
- Patent requests are not investigated in enough detail before being granted. As shown on Slashdot, many patents are granted for things that are quite obvious, or things that are supposed to be unpatentable (e.g. mathematical algorithms).
- Patent expirations last far too long for the computer industry.
So with that little summary in mind, I can see a few ways to improve the system.
Make patents easily searchable, even by a non-lawyer (reduce redundancy). Make them much more difficult to obtain, not by money, but by scrutiny (emphasize REAL inventions). Give an equal opportunity to the basement inventor and the corporation. It should not require an armload of cash and lawyers to obtain one, if your invention is sound.
If these steps could be taken in good faith, I think the patent system could live up to its original intent, and benefit inventors without harming the public.
Best regards,
SEAL
Yeah yeah SOMEONE will moderate this down, but before you do, take a look at his User Info. Some flames are deserved.
Blah.
I guess I should prefix this with "I am not a physicist, but..."
Consider this quote from the article:
However, small earthquakes, acoustic noises and laser fluctuations can cause a disturbance at one site that could lead scientists to believe they have detected a gravity wave.
Now recall that Hanford was one of the nation's big plutonium production sites back in the day. There's still alot of waste around the site. It is also near a river (acoustic noise).
Certainly these factors are probably much less significant than, say, earthquake-prone California. But if I were tasked with selecting a site, I think I'd prefer somewhere flat and boring. The less disturbances the better. Like I said, though, I'm not a physicist, so perhaps they feel that they can compensate for these factors.
Best regards,
SEAL
Stop for a moment and imagine the government's ideal scenario. They want unhampered access to as many forms of communication as possible. At the same time, they want people to think their communications are secure. That way, people will talk openly, and they can gather more information on the bad guys.
So they say.
How far does it go, though? Take a few sample cases...
Frankly, I think the government can shove wiretapping up its ass. Joe Average is the one who really gets the brunt of their scrutiny. Is our society so paranoid that we must spy on our own people? That's not the kind of life I want, although it gets more that way every day.
Best regards,
SEAL
Since it appears likely that Judge Jackson will produce a result favorable to the Justice Department, the issue here is moot. Microsoft would be the one filing for an appeal, not the Justice Department.
Microsoft has nothing to gain by appealing directly to the Supreme Court. ANY court has a good chance of being more favorable to them than Judge Jackson. By appealing to the Supreme Court, and being heard, Microsoft merely risks losing the final battle. They are in a much better position if they drag this thing out.
Just my non-lawyer $.02
SEAL
You won't see a major shift in motherboard design until both of these factors are at least moderately better with a non-legacy system.
Right now (yes I realize this is a big generalization) - MOST ISA cards cost less than the equivalent PCI card. Likewise, ISA does not incur much of a performance hit with many of the peripherals. For example, sound cards, 10 MBps network cards, and modems / other serial devices will all work fine in an ISA slot.
Speaking of modems, I believe there was a recent discussion on Slashdot about them. There was note of the fact that few, if any PCI modems are made that are not Winmodems. So if you're rigging up an all PCI system with one of those, are you really gaining performance? I doubt it.
So in order to maintain what amounts to a marginal performance boost, you're going to use an external modem. This is, once again, more expensive, which goes back to my initial point.
I can think of much better ways to improve my system performance for the same amount of money.
Best regards,
SEAL
It discusses what to do about computer PERIPHERALS just so the movie industry won't have to worry about pirates?
Give me a break.
"Average Joe" has been copying VHS tapes for years. That certainly didn't stop the huge growth of the home video-rental and sale industry. It seems that all of a sudden, just because a computer is involved, there is rampant paranoia about crackers and pirates.
The article itself admits that stopgap measures are unlikely to have any effect on the professional pirates. By this, I mean the people who would have the resources to copy the original packaging and sell it as the real thing. This is what the industry should worry about.
Crippling MY hardware just because I MIGHT use it illegally is bullshit. Kindof goes hand in hand with the industry "tax" on items like CD-R discs and cassette tapes. They have more than enough money already. Quit whining about the smidgeon of a percent of people who:
a) actually have the hardware necessary to copy DVDs,
b) actually have the bandwidth to share them on the internet, and
c) actually find this an entertaining pastime even though it is far more costly than buying the actual DVD release.
The whole recording industry, both video and audio makes me sick.
SEAL
This article gave me the impression that there are folks who stand firmly against the idea of Internet voting, simply because of who has access to the Internet. There were little blurbs in there about 'mostly white', and reservations not even having complete telephone coverage yet.
So what?
If such a system were implemented, it would have to coexist with traditional voting. I think the main idea here, is to get more people to vote. The more options you provide, the better, in my opinion.
Does Internet voting discriminate against those without Internet access? Sure, but there ARE OTHER WAYS TO VOTE. Similarily, do absentee ballots discriminate against homeless people who don't have a mailing address? I think we need to worry a little less about demographics and worry more about the hugely apathetic voter-turnout levels in many areas of the nation.
Just my $.02
SEAL
I just want to be left alone.
This article seems to blur the difference between geeks, and the technology industry. Let's be honest: these are NOT the same thing. The companies mentioned (3COM, for example) certainly employ geeks. But I seriously doubt these are the people behind the lobbying efforts.
I can't speak for every coder, or even most of them. But for myself: I just want the government to stay out of my hair. Let me do my job, which I enjoy. Tax me fairly. Give me a channel to voice my opinion to my representative. And just be straight up about policy and don't lie to me.
Hmm I guess there ARE some things that need work eh? However, for those things, I trust grass roots efforts and non-profit organizations more than any Silicon Valley corporation trying to lobby the government. Lend support to groups like the EFF (or whichever ones you feel best represent your interests).
Large corporations, on the other hand, are only looking out for #1. If you think for a moment that they are lobbying for the greater-good, geek-rights, or any "noble" cause, you're fooling yourself. Their lobbying dollars are usually spent only when it will increase their profit.
Best regards,
SEAL
Intel. That wasn't so bad now was it? At least it isn't a 4-letter word. :)
:)
Signed,
SEAL - who is sick of ticker-symbols
Yes they've written some interesting software. So have alot of other people.
One of the cDc guys even said something to the effect of "no matter how good you are, there is always someone better out there". Maybe they should listen to themselves and drop the attitude.
What about the claim that BO2K shows how "wide-open" your machine really is? Give me a break. That's like saying "Hey - your Linux machine is wide open because I can install a daemon on it if I am root".
Whatever.
These guys get way too much attention turned their way just because they can spout a few bad words and act like they are l33t. I tend to be more impressed with people who contribute software without caring who notices.
SEAL
This type of attack has been going on for YEARS. IRC Botnets are a good example of a coordinated method of attack. And the attack isn't necessarily limited to the IRC environment.
I suppose I'm not surprised that it took this long for the government to start recognizing distributed attacks...
Best regards,
SEAL
However, take a close look at what the phone companies are saying. Basically, their complaint is that phone network X is being congested by too much modem usage, where the average call length is longer than a voice call.
But, BOTH types of calls are circuit-switched. So the congestion has been created by the phone companies themselves. They oversell phone lines to their customers - i.e. many more people have a 2nd analog line these days.
If the phone companies were really serious about reducing their system usage, they would take action on a couple of fronts.
First, if anyone requests a 2nd phone line, offer FREE voice mail service as an alternative. In other words, a way for people to leave them a message when they are online. Second, the phone companies should place ISDN at a competitve price. I don't understand the technical stuff behind it (someone fill in?) but it seems to me that a digital connection would be less of a drain on the phone network than an analog one.
But let's face it: the phone companies don't WANT to relieve the usage. They want to increase their revenue.
Best regards,
SEAL
So, let's think. Will I be able to get Mozilla without getting Netscape 5? Yes.
Will it be stable? The Mozilla dev team has made improvements, but they still haven't reached this goal. Or will AOL take an unstable Mozilla and only put forth the polishing work for Netscape, leaving the open-source Mozilla to fend for itself? Hmm.
Will AOL's feature additions to Netscape be merged back into Mozilla? Hmm.
Will a free, open-source Mozilla be able to contain all the necessary parts? (i.e. go read the About page on Netscape and see how much technology is from 3rd parties). Hmm.
Let's think... the picture's not as simple as you would paint it to be.
SEAL
Mozilla may not be dead, but the browser war was over long ago. IE isn't a perfect browser, but neither is Netscape. However, that's enough for Microsoft to win. They have the dominant OS, and a "good-enough" browser packaged with it. Why should I install another app to duplicate functionality on my machine? And I used to be a die-hard Netscape fan. I would imagine the family purchasing a new computer wouldn't even think of Netscape.
And then, there's my other beef: AOL. I hold little respect for this company, and yes, maybe I fear their intentions a bit. Similar to MS. But look what they've snatched up:
Winamp
ICQ
Netscape
You better believe that they'll try to merge functionality into Netscape 5.0. Probably more AIM crap and advertising and who-knows-what-else that I don't want to install. Netscape 4.5+ was annoying in this fashion due to their blatant attempts to direct everyone to Netcenter. I still use 4.08 as my browser of choice on Linux because of this.
I'm hoping that Mozilla will be available separately from Netscape, so that I can use a less commercially-tainted browser. These big companies fighting over us peons really gets on my nerves sometimes.
In that regard, I'd be happy to pay the Opera guys 30 bucks if the Linux version was mature. At least its a chance to get away from the bloat. Hmm I haven't checked that lately... maybe I should go do that.
SEAL
No delegation of administrative privileges?
They apparently never used sudo.
I don't mind a little marketing FUD here and there, but when they flat out lie, that irritates me.
SEAL
This is just my perspective, so take it with a grain of salt.
In order to code for both desktops, you have to look at what they are each built upon.
GNOME -> GTK+ -> X
KDE -> QT -> X
Ok that's really simplified and leaves out stuff like imlib. But you get the idea.
GTK seems like an acceptable level to work with. Why? Well, GTK is required in order to use the GIMP, which many people have on their system. I can't think of an app as popular as the GIMP that is written for QT (besides KDE itself).
So there are probably alot of KDE systems out there that ALSO have GTK installed. I think it's less likely that a given GNOME machine will have QT installed.
Of course writing for GTK doesn't get you alot of the cool features for a particular desktop. I agree that it would be nice if there was a better cross-desktop development tool.
Another $.02 for the pot,
SEAL
Any deuterium (aka heavy water) DOES provide neutrons, in addition to the slowdown behavior described. This probably isn't the case here, though. However, some reactors use heavy water as the moderator in order to decrease the U-235 purity required to sustain a chain reaction. I believe Canada uses such reactors. Low U-235 purity means you can't make weapons with it, which is a good thing politically, and security-wise.
I worked as a dev on Visual Studio...
;)
This is a little bit off topic, but here goes...
For just everyday use (and not this usability study) - Microsoft doesn't really care what OS their employees use as long as they can perform their job functions. You can get quite a bit of functionality on their network with a Linux machine, especially with Samba.
The only thorn in its side that I heard of was that Linux didn't have an equivalent to the MS Proxy Client. I'm not sure if that has changed these days (someone chime in here?). So you couldn't really access the internet, except when web browsing.
But you could still use Netscape of course, and anything else provided it was not illegal software. Microsoft certainly endorses their own products, but if an employee feels more comfortable using Linux, and is still productive, then Microsoft doesn't care.
Just don't try calling their support desk for help
I read through many of the questions in their FAQ, which immediately threw more questions into my mind. The people involved in this project seem to have a good level of knowledge with regards to space travel and the physics behind it. This is good, of course, since I'd certainly want qualified people if I was going to take this sort of vacation.
;))
But where is the business model? I saw estimates for the feasibility study, project design, and testing. A couple year span is given for each. Where are they getting these numbers? Since they estimate the project to run over a billion dollars, where do they plan to get the capital?
And who's going to risk providing venture capital without a solid plan? They say that they plan to make an immediate profit through the entertainment angle. Well that's fine and dandy, but there is no mention of the overhead associated with doing this. This isn't like a standard vacation. You need lawyers to deal with possible accidents. Special security people would need to protect the enclosed environment from some nutcase going postal.
In short, private enterprise has pros and cons. They avoid the overhead of a government project. However, the people they will be transporting do not have the same level of expertise, trustworthiness, and professionalism as traditional astronauts. This adds to the expense.
Don't get me wrong - I think it would be a beautiful thing if we each had the opportunity to experience space travel. But these guys have their heads in the clouds, and really need to formulate a solid business model before they have any hope of getting off the ground (sorry that was kinda bad
Best regards,
SEAL
I am not a lawyer, but...
First, I believe that given their current track record in Judge Jackson's courtroom, Microsoft will receive a ruling against them. However, the really interesting part will be seeing WHY this ruling was made.
Microsoft will, no doubt, appeal the case. The details of the ruling in Judge Jackson's court will play a large part in determining how well they do in the appeals court. Right now, Microsoft feels that Judge Jackson is very biased against them (side note: gee I wonder why?). Therefore, their strategy is to assume that they will lose this round. They say that they are attempting to build a good basis to defend themselves in an appeal.
So back to my original question: when do you label something a monopoly? Well here's one definition:
MONOPOLY - This word has various significations. 1. It is the abuse of free commerce by which one or more individuals have procured the advantage of selling alone all of a particular kind of merchandise, to the detriment of the public.
All combinations among merchants to raise the price of merchandise to the injury of the public, is also said to be a monopoly.
A monopoly is also an institution or allowance by a grant from the sovereign power of a state, by commission, letters patent, or otherwise, to any person, or corporation, by which the exclusive right of buying, selling, making, working, or using anything, is given.
(source: http://192.41.4.29/def2/m138.htm)
Well let's cross of the 3rd one - that's easy, since the government does not say you have to buy Windows.
By the first definition, Microsoft COULD be in trouble. No, they didn't sell ALL of the operating system software, or browser software. But at what percentage do you draw the line? And can you prove it was detrimental to consumers? That's the tricky part.
The second definition COULD be used against them also. Once again, it is tricky to build this case, though. Did Microsoft use their monopoly to cause a price increase? Hmm. Do you include indirect profits? (e.g. give away a free browser, or sell your OS for cheap, then turn around and charge big server prices, since your Windows machines need a Windows server). Now, that's not necessarily true of course - just an example though.
Notice throughout this definition, though, that the word monopoly is really unrelated to whether or not you hurt your competitors. You can play dirty all you want as long as you aren't hurting the public, and you do, in fact, have competition.
Don't get me wrong - I think Microsoft's business practices are dirty, and they flex their muscle too much. But other companies (AOL and Sun, for example) can and do play the same way, given the chance.
Microsoft will probably lose this round with the DOJ, but I think in the end, after all the appeals and such, it will be very difficult to win a case against Microsoft, stating that they are a monopoly.
Signed,
SEAL
Crypto is used by human rights groups. It is despised by the US Government. Draw your own conclusion.
Crypto is used by criminals. It is despised by the US Government. Draw your own conclusion.
As you can see, these statements are fairly worthless. The stereotypical Congressman is simply going to listen to whichever bit of advice seems most likely to garner votes. So he has people like Louis Freeh and Janet Reno whispering in his ear about the evils of encryption. Criminals abroad MUST NOT be allowed to operate without our surveillance, or so they say.
Except, of course, as we all know - encryption technology is already widely available outside the U.S. And then there's the old saying about "criminalize guns, and only criminals will have guns".
But if you want to really frighten yourself, turn on CSPAN sometime and see if you can find a Congressional proceding related to crypto. The sheer cluelessness will astound you. And these are the people making decisions for an entire nation.
Many of these congressmen honestly think that they are doing things that are in the best interest of protecting American citizens. Unfortunately they often become too separated from their constituents. But I wouldn't label them all as malicious, or traitors. The real criminals are the people behind the scenes, whispering their own agendas at the legislators, and stifling the voice of the American voters.
SEAL
Just a small note (it's been awhile) - but as I recall, you could set up a mask so that SLiRP would work properly over a connection that was not 8-bit clean. I don't remember the parameter off the top of my head but it isn't difficult.
SEAL
The problem for Java, is that cross-platform capability has a way of limiting what it can do. Unfortunately, IMO, Sun misread the demands of the industry. Sure, there are many shops out there which use both Unix and Win32 systems. But given a type of computer (workstation, server, whatever) - you'll find that they are often all using the same platform within an organization.
But, people say, Java also fills a need for rapid, safe application development. No mucking about with pointers and such. Less mistakes = more productivity. Certainly, that is true, and people are relatively expensive compared to hardware. So the runtime speed / development speed tradeoff is often a good one.
However, Microsoft recognizes this very well. They will certainly market something to fill the gap (aka Cool). They aren't really interested in cross-platform support, so odds are, whatever they implement is going to blow Java out of the water, in both speed and capability, on a Win32 platform.
Whether customers will jump onboard or not remains to be seen.
SEAL