From the article: "Microsoft's eclipsing dominance in desktop software has created a global security risk," the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles said. "As a result of Microsoft's concerted effort to strengthen and expand its monopolies by tightly integrating applications with its operating system... the world's computer networks are now susceptible to massive, cascading failure."
I think the above statement is pretty interesting. What it says (to me) is that the issue isn't that there are bugs or security problems with Microsoft products, nor is the issue that Microsoft dominates (or weighs heavily in) many software markets. The issue seems to be that Microsoft does both of these things, which results in a ubiquitous and totally insecure majority around the world.
This reminds me of the general pattern where Microsoft is busted for doing something that another company did first or is also guilty of. The non-Microsoft instance (could be a small company, or a large company with a small component) can usually can get away with it because of scale, whereas Microsoft cannot since it's on such a large scale that everyone notices and cannot ignore it. One of many examples is the "OS integrated with the browser" war. Nobody gave a shit when IBM shipped OS/2 warp with built-in browser support even though in principle it was the same thing Microsoft did with Internet Explorer. IBM's reach was minimal with OS/2, so it was rather irrelevant what they did. Not so with Microsoft.
So is this class-action suit setting a precedent that bugs in your software will lead to lawsuits? I don't think so. I also don't think it claims that being a gigantic, far-reaching company is bad. Just don't mix the two, or the wolves will come after you.
Without a doubt, my computer (and thus the internet as a whole) is the de facto source for nearly all of my information needs. For instance, it provides:
- instant information in lieu of other media forms (TV, magazines, radio, newspapers) without the hassle of paper or waiting for a specific broadcast
- access to information that would be otherwise unavailable (for instance, press from foreign countries)
- instant access to financial info, transaction history, credit card statements, ordering information
- instant reference materials while in the workplace, from jdk api info to php functions, I can usually find my answers much faster by computer than I can with a reference book
- no need for phone books, conventional postage to pay my bills
- simplifies shopping (well, some of it), handling customer service issues, providing questions or feedback for a company, updating billing info, changing account details, etc.
found this article at CNN. it's article also brief, but has more info than the article in the/. story. anyway, here 'tis:
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) -- Radio signals for the next generation of mobile phone services can cause headaches and nausea, according to a study conducted by three Dutch ministries.
The study, the first of its kind, compared the impact of radiation from base stations used for the current mobile telephone network with that of base stations for new third generation (3G) networks for fast data transfer, which will enable services such as video conferencing on a mobile device.
A base station, which usually covers a "cell" area of several square kilometers (miles), transmits signals to mobile phones with an electromagnetic field.
"If the test group was exposed to third generation base station signals there was a significant impact... They felt tingling sensations, got headaches and felt nauseous," a spokeswoman for the Dutch Economics Ministry said.
There was no negative impact from signals for current mobile networks.
However, cognitive functions such as memory and response times were boosted by both 3G signals and the current signals, the study found. It said people became more alert when they were exposed to both.
Government ministers responsible for Economic Affairs, Health and Telecommunications said follow-up research was needed to confirm the findings as well as to look at any longer-term health effects and biological causes.
They will also discuss the study with the European Commission, the spokeswoman said.
The double-blind laboratory tests -- meaning no one in the survey knew if a 3G-like base station was actually transmitting signals -- exposed test subjects to expected levels of average radiation for 3G networks when they become commercial.
The GSM Association, a global organization of mobile telecommunications operators, said it was studying the report and could not comment.
The study, conducted by the Dutch technological research institute TNO, was the first to look for an impact of mobile telephones on well-being. It was also the first study to find a statistically significant negative impact from 3G base stations.
Previous research on a negative health impact of mobile phones, mostly second-generation, has been inconclusive.
Existing research gives no scientific evidence that second-generation phones cause brain tumors, while a long-term study by the International Agency on Research on Cancer is not expected to yield results before 2004.
Previous research did find an impact on cognitive functions, which was also found in the Dutch survey. But TNO noted that earlier studies always measured the impact of cellphones held close to the head, causing high fields of radiation close to the ear and warming of the brain.
TNO's study used lower a dose of radiation to mimic base station signals rather than handsets.
Handsets emit stronger radiation when they are used, while base stations transmit more constant levels of radio signals, exposing everyone within range.
thanks to, ehh, Google, here's an html version of the article
I didn't read the whole article (kinda lengthy) but it seems pretty informative. I found their assumptions interesting, as they reveal some of the essence of what makes Google such a great search tool. Here are a few from the article:
- The system is built from many inexpensive commodity components that often fail. It must constantly monitor itself and detect, tolerate, and recover promptly from component failures on a routine basis.
- High sustained bandwidth is more imprtant that low latency. Most of our target applications place a premium onprocessing data in bulk at a high rate, while few have stringent response time requirements for an individual read or write.
- The workloads primarily consist of two kinds of reads: large streaming reads and small random reads. Successive operations from the same client often read through a contiguous region of a file.
I may be misinterpreting what you mean, but in order to drive safely you have to have a minimum of 3 seconds of space between you and the cars in front and behind you. On a 65MPH freeway that equates to almost 300 feet. If everyone left that much space we would very rarely have multiple car accidents.
Since when do freeway drivers, or really drivers on any terrain, follow what they "should" do? I currently live in Austin, Texas (~1 million people), and have lived previously in the Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. areas. I can promise you that, while it would be much safer, cars almost never allow other vehicles to have 300 feet between them (in front or behind). Do drivers do this where you live? Like, seriously? 300 feet?
I know all the math about safe stopping distance and reaction times, but I also know that most drivers don't really seem to care about safety. I regularly see drivers eating, reading, talking on a cell phone, applying make-up, digging around in the back seat, messing with a kid in a child seat, etc., all while driving down a freeway. I wish I were making this up, but sadly I see this stuff every day. I might pay more attention than most other people, but that's probably only because I saw this stuff a few times and can't stop looking for it now.
I remember a particularly awesome display of driving idiocy in the L.A. area, about 10 years ago I think. Most freeway traffic cruises at 75-80 mph, and while L.A. drivers are actually pretty aware and alert, they are not accustomed to driving in anything other than sunny weather. Think I'm joking? One day there was a thick fog that rolled in mysteriously (Southern California almost never sees fog), and the drivers made no adjustments to their driving habits. So one one freeway an otherwise minor accident occurred, but because drivers were so fricking close to each other it resulted in a 100+ car pile-up. It was a total mess. 300 feet sure would have been nice, but it's just not what happens (at least, nowhere that I've seen).
A better analogy would be, wouldn't they recall cars if your car steering and brakes failed every time the "low gas" indicator went on.
You're almost there. The equivalent situation for a dead Segway battery would be a gasoline engine with no gasoline.
I've been (un)fortunate enough to run out of gas in a car as well as while riding a motorcycle, and I can tell you when you're out of gas in either one (especially if you're in a freeway situation, which I was lucky enough to be in while riding a nearly-empty motorcycle) it is completely unsafe. No gas, no power. No power means you can't keep up, and suddenly the 5-10 feet between you and the other cars seems way too close. So if I, as a driver, am too careless/stupid/whatever enough to ignore the gas light and keep driving, how the hell could I make any claim that it's the auto manufacturer's fault if I get plowed into by other freeway traffic? I think this is similar to the Segway situation, because they're giving you a warning alert, so it becomes a discretionary issue with the individual.
I'm curious to know what Segway intends to do with the units that are sent back for the recall. My guess is that they'll simply modify the Segway to shut down if the battery is low.
There might not be anything fishy going on at all, but that's no reason to stop making perfectly good conspiracy theories.
As a wise sage once told me, "never let the facts get in the way of a good story."
And how good of a story would it be if this were just "some guy got fired because he vocalised his views outside of the company, now that company looks bad which they're not happy about, although this is just like any other employee of any other company going and doing some extremely public thing and thus suggesting that everyone else in the company does that thing too." That wouldn't really be too interesting of a story. But Microsoft! Hmm, let's see, didn't one of the guys who used to work here almost have lunch with somebody who interviewed at Microsoft? That's the connection, right?
Alas, most of journalism and mainstream media is sure to prevent the facts from getting in the way of a good story...
for a group that works with one of the nicest looking operating systems ever, they've really produced a horrible website. my "nice" guess is that they're either colorblind, or a group of teenagers who still lament the loss of the tag (or both).
Of course a good working knowledge of vi is useful as it's pretty much the lowest common denominator on any Unix-like system.
Very well put.
I first learned vi in 1991, and while it was a steep uphill battle, I crested the hump pretty quickly and have been totally pleased since then. I have always enjoyed having a familiar editor available on just about any system I've touched (Solaris, Ultrix, Unicos, Linux, OSX, Windows).
Sure it's nice to have Emacs configured to do a gazillion things for you, but I liken that to owning a radio, tv, telephone, answering machine, dishwasher, dog walker, maid, bicycle, grocery cart, and dry cleaner all built into one gigantic thing.
Shut up! Shut up, you American! You always talk, you Americans, you talk and you talk and you say, "Let me tell ya something...", and "I've just gotta say this..."
modding instructions: if you laughed, mod up if you did not laugh, get off the computer and go watch The Meaning of Life
I'm not too suprised to see that Blaster is still running around, even at MIT. I work in an office that's behind a firewall, but it wasn't until yesterday that somebody discovered one of the Blater variants in our internal network. Most likely it was introduced by somebody taking their laptop home, and then back to the office. So what's the big deal? We're a small software house with reasonably intelligent folks working here, but that didn't stop people from a) avoiding the install of Microsoft patches on their office machines, even though these are internal machines and thus "immune" from external traffic, and b) from taking a laptop computer home and using it on a non-firewall protected environment. That we're seeing stuff like this still happening on MIT campus doesn't suprise me. Sure, a good number of/. readers will scoff at this, but there are plenty of intelligent people out there who still think that a firewall will protect them from everything. And that's just the reasonably intelligent people. What about the average, non-technical folks who don't even know what a firewall is? What the heck has to change (other than Microsoft cleaning up Windows, and shutting down all of its stoopid ports) for this kind of things to stop?
I guess he's supposed to be a smarty (even though the article says he followed someone else's instructions on how to build the reactor), but I sure hope he knows what he's doing so his classmates won't have to deal with growing extra legs and stuff...
that's a very good point. Japan, for instance, is widely known to have some of the highest property prices on the planet because there are so many people per unit of land. so if you put a single high-speed connection somewhere, you're going to be reaching far more people than you would if you laid that same amount of cable to a typical, spread-out metropolitan area in the United States.
dsl, for instance, probably sees much higher adoption in areas where population density is high enough for the telcos to justify installing the infrastructure. otherwise, cable is much more cost-effective.
Overall, this is a fairly well written piece. For those who have not yet RTFA, I'd say it's worth your time.
One thing that was not mentioned here, and something that I've been wondering about, is the impact on new CD sales (both real and perceived) that's due to the huge popularity of purchasing used CDs from music stores. Clearly, a record company can only make money if the consumer purchases a new CD. But if I spend my $15-20 on a CD, then sell it to FooBar Music Shop for $6, then you come along and pick it up for $10, we've got a CD purchase that has been diverted from a brand new product to a second-hand one. I only know a handful of folks who really grab music from file sharing networks, but I know a zillion people who have spent a lot of money on a nearly-new CD for $8.
I'm pretty sure that the RIAA has been ignoring any discussion of this trend because there's nothing they can do about it, and therefore they can't drum up support against it. But I suspect this behavior of buying used CDs is responsible for much more of the "slump in CD sales" than we know.
Anyone have any numbers, info, or insights on this?
An Xbox is made to be used for the purpose of the person who bought it. A bike is meant to take your places, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to take off the wheel and hook it up to a generator (or whatever other creative modification cames up).
What if I decide to use climbing carabiners for some purpose other than climbing, such as hanging a hammock in the backyard? What about using climbing line to hang my laundry? How about using a stack of telephone books (or Physics books) to prop my monitor up a little higher off of my desk? What about using cinder blocks and planks of wood to make a simple bookshelf? What if you use a grocery bag to put trash in? How about using a bedsheet to cover your furniture while you're painting the inside of you apartment/house? What about using a fishing tackle box to store nuts and bolts? What if I decide to take a nap in the back seat of my car? What do you think of using Coca Cola to clean corroded battery terminals?
I think a manufacturer has every right to design, build, market and sell whatever the heck they want. But when a consumer makes a purchase, I do not think it is fair for the manufacturer to have any control of what the consumer does with that item.
I've never heard of this guy, so I just google'd him, and found all kinds of things, including this interview with him from March 13, 2003, and this brief biography. He is currently vice president of Managed Security Services Operations for Symantec, and previously worked for the U.S. Department of Defense Computer Emergency Response Team (DoD/CERT).
kinda nice to see that the future "Head of Homeland Cybersecurity" at least has a formal c.s. education, and some obvious real-world experience.
My wife had an identical experience installing RedHat on her laptop, things went very well and she was up and running fairly fast. She's used linux as her primary OS before, and has no problems with it.
But due to time constraints these days, she doesn't have the time to track down and fix each little quirk that didn't come out "just right" at install time. Media apps have been problem points, as has her wireless card and our scanner. Linux is a great os for a hobbyist, but when you only want to spend 30-60 minutes per day on your machine accomplishing a few tasks, it's pretty damn annoying to get hung up on this driver missing, or that config thing not set up right, etc.
At this point, she's ready to get an iMac and have it all over with - no more Windows, no more Linux config/install issues, just a clean, secure os that will let her get things done.
> For the researcher to generally state 'way more than 50%' rings alarm bells in my head.
I'm with you on this one, as it seems highly suspicious that this group has been able to produce ultra-efficient solar cells. Beyond that, I don't see the point of integrating these panels into a window - that just seems complex, unnecessary, and certainly has to be more expensive than a regular window paired with a stand-alone solar cell.
My take is that this idea will not succeed. Nobody will be willing to spend the money to replace the windows in existing buildings, and future construction will probably not be interested in spending more money for integrated solar-window things without some reality to back up these efficiency claims.
In fact, this is not only impossible, but unrealistic and rather terrible. Why? Because there will be absolutely no practical way to enforce, encourage, or even suggest uniform "rules" (whatever they might be) in every country around the world.
The article plainly says that we are continually exposed to junk mail, viruses, etc., and this would help to eliminate such things, but one of the reasons that such nuisances exist is because there is no single governing body over the internet. As much as I'd like to see this idea take off and clean things up, I think it will never, ever fly.
Why shouldn't Microsoft have the right to invest in, design, manufacture, and sell a game machine that will play only Microsoft games? Why should you have a "right" to hack such a machine and run non-MS games or Linux on it?
Here's why. First, let's say that we're all OK with Microsoft, or any other company for that matter, making any kind of product they choose, and for any specific purpose.
Instead of talking about an Xbox and hacking it to do different things, I'd like to mention a few other things to help illustrate my point.
What if I decide to use climbing carabiners for some purpose other than climbing, such as hanging a hammock in the backyard? What about using climbing line to hang my laundry? How about using a stack of telephone books (or Physics books) to prop my monitor up a little higher off of my desk? What about using cinder blocks and planks of wood to make a simple bookshelf? What if you use a grocery bag to put trash in? How about using a bedsheet to cover your furniture while you're painting the inside of you apartment/house? What about using a fishing tackle box to store nuts and bolts? What if I decide to take a nap in the back seat of my car? What do you think of using Coca Cola to clean corroded battery terminals?
I'm not trying to troll here, I really am attempting to make a point. I think a manufacturer has every right to design, build, market and sell whatever the heck they want. But when a consumer makes a purchase, I do not think it is fair for the manufacturer to have anything to do with enforcing a specific usage.
Now, obviously, there could be issues of general safety and business abuse, and a company might need to protect themselves for liability or unfair competition. But I can't see the perspective that says Microsoft has any right whatsoever to dictate whether I play games on my Xbox, try to install Linux on it, or just use it as a doorstop.
Having heard countless stories from most of my Indian pals over the years, I'm really curious how much of a difference this GPS plan will make. Sure, it's might be better than the way things are right now, but it seems that the transportation problems are endemic to society and thus not fixable (or even help-able) with something like GPS devices. And this isn't limited to just trains; there are apparently bus accidents all the time, too.
Having not been to India myself, I have to go with my second-hand knowledge and stories I hear, but it pretty much sounds like the Indian economy would never support the kinds of changes required to make mass transit actually safe. I'm interested to hear others' thoughts on this.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article: "Microsoft's eclipsing dominance in desktop software has created a global security risk," the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles said. "As a result of Microsoft's concerted effort to strengthen and expand its monopolies by tightly integrating applications with its operating system ... the world's computer networks are now susceptible to massive, cascading failure."
I think the above statement is pretty interesting. What it says (to me) is that the issue isn't that there are bugs or security problems with Microsoft products, nor is the issue that Microsoft dominates (or weighs heavily in) many software markets. The issue seems to be that Microsoft does both of these things, which results in a ubiquitous and totally insecure majority around the world.
This reminds me of the general pattern where Microsoft is busted for doing something that another company did first or is also guilty of. The non-Microsoft instance (could be a small company, or a large company with a small component) can usually can get away with it because of scale, whereas Microsoft cannot since it's on such a large scale that everyone notices and cannot ignore it. One of many examples is the "OS integrated with the browser" war. Nobody gave a shit when IBM shipped OS/2 warp with built-in browser support even though in principle it was the same thing Microsoft did with Internet Explorer. IBM's reach was minimal with OS/2, so it was rather irrelevant what they did. Not so with Microsoft.
So is this class-action suit setting a precedent that bugs in your software will lead to lawsuits? I don't think so. I also don't think it claims that being a gigantic, far-reaching company is bad. Just don't mix the two, or the wolves will come after you.
Without a doubt, my computer (and thus the internet as a whole) is the de facto source for nearly all of my information needs. For instance, it provides:
- instant information in lieu of other media forms (TV, magazines, radio, newspapers) without the hassle of paper or waiting for a specific broadcast
- access to information that would be otherwise unavailable (for instance, press from foreign countries)
- instant access to financial info, transaction history, credit card statements, ordering information
- instant reference materials while in the workplace, from jdk api info to php functions, I can usually find my answers much faster by computer than I can with a reference book
- no need for phone books, conventional postage to pay my bills
- simplifies shopping (well, some of it), handling customer service issues, providing questions or feedback for a company, updating billing info, changing account details, etc.
found this article at CNN. it's article also brief, but has more info than the article in the /. story. anyway, here 'tis:
... They felt tingling sensations, got headaches and felt nauseous," a spokeswoman for the Dutch Economics Ministry said.
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) -- Radio signals for the next generation of mobile phone services can cause headaches and nausea, according to a study conducted by three Dutch ministries.
The study, the first of its kind, compared the impact of radiation from base stations used for the current mobile telephone network with that of base stations for new third generation (3G) networks for fast data transfer, which will enable services such as video conferencing on a mobile device.
A base station, which usually covers a "cell" area of several square kilometers (miles), transmits signals to mobile phones with an electromagnetic field.
"If the test group was exposed to third generation base station signals there was a significant impact
There was no negative impact from signals for current mobile networks.
However, cognitive functions such as memory and response times were boosted by both 3G signals and the current signals, the study found. It said people became more alert when they were exposed to both.
Government ministers responsible for Economic Affairs, Health and Telecommunications said follow-up research was needed to confirm the findings as well as to look at any longer-term health effects and biological causes.
They will also discuss the study with the European Commission, the spokeswoman said.
The double-blind laboratory tests -- meaning no one in the survey knew if a 3G-like base station was actually transmitting signals -- exposed test subjects to expected levels of average radiation for 3G networks when they become commercial.
The GSM Association, a global organization of mobile telecommunications operators, said it was studying the report and could not comment.
The study, conducted by the Dutch technological research institute TNO, was the first to look for an impact of mobile telephones on well-being. It was also the first study to find a statistically significant negative impact from 3G base stations.
Previous research on a negative health impact of mobile phones, mostly second-generation, has been inconclusive.
Existing research gives no scientific evidence that second-generation phones cause brain tumors, while a long-term study by the International Agency on Research on Cancer is not expected to yield results before 2004.
Previous research did find an impact on cognitive functions, which was also found in the Dutch survey. But TNO noted that earlier studies always measured the impact of cellphones held close to the head, causing high fields of radiation close to the ear and warming of the brain.
TNO's study used lower a dose of radiation to mimic base station signals rather than handsets.
Handsets emit stronger radiation when they are used, while base stations transmit more constant levels of radio signals, exposing everyone within range.
thanks to, ehh, Google, here's an html version of the article
I didn't read the whole article (kinda lengthy) but it seems pretty informative. I found their assumptions interesting, as they reveal some of the essence of what makes Google such a great search tool. Here are a few from the article:
- The system is built from many inexpensive commodity components that often fail. It must constantly monitor itself and detect, tolerate, and recover promptly from component failures on a routine basis.
- High sustained bandwidth is more imprtant that low latency. Most of our target applications place a premium onprocessing data in bulk at a high rate, while few have stringent response time requirements for an individual read or write.
- The workloads primarily consist of two kinds of reads: large streaming reads and small random reads. Successive operations from the same client often read through a contiguous region of a file.
I may be misinterpreting what you mean, but in order to drive safely you have to have a minimum of 3 seconds of space between you and the cars in front and behind you. On a 65MPH freeway that equates to almost 300 feet. If everyone left that much space we would very rarely have multiple car accidents.
Since when do freeway drivers, or really drivers on any terrain, follow what they "should" do? I currently live in Austin, Texas (~1 million people), and have lived previously in the Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. areas. I can promise you that, while it would be much safer, cars almost never allow other vehicles to have 300 feet between them (in front or behind). Do drivers do this where you live? Like, seriously? 300 feet?
I know all the math about safe stopping distance and reaction times, but I also know that most drivers don't really seem to care about safety. I regularly see drivers eating, reading, talking on a cell phone, applying make-up, digging around in the back seat, messing with a kid in a child seat, etc., all while driving down a freeway. I wish I were making this up, but sadly I see this stuff every day. I might pay more attention than most other people, but that's probably only because I saw this stuff a few times and can't stop looking for it now.
I remember a particularly awesome display of driving idiocy in the L.A. area, about 10 years ago I think. Most freeway traffic cruises at 75-80 mph, and while L.A. drivers are actually pretty aware and alert, they are not accustomed to driving in anything other than sunny weather. Think I'm joking? One day there was a thick fog that rolled in mysteriously (Southern California almost never sees fog), and the drivers made no adjustments to their driving habits. So one one freeway an otherwise minor accident occurred, but because drivers were so fricking close to each other it resulted in a 100+ car pile-up. It was a total mess. 300 feet sure would have been nice, but it's just not what happens (at least, nowhere that I've seen).
A better analogy would be, wouldn't they recall cars if your car steering and brakes failed every time the "low gas" indicator went on.
You're almost there. The equivalent situation for a dead Segway battery would be a gasoline engine with no gasoline.
I've been (un)fortunate enough to run out of gas in a car as well as while riding a motorcycle, and I can tell you when you're out of gas in either one (especially if you're in a freeway situation, which I was lucky enough to be in while riding a nearly-empty motorcycle) it is completely unsafe. No gas, no power. No power means you can't keep up, and suddenly the 5-10 feet between you and the other cars seems way too close. So if I, as a driver, am too careless/stupid/whatever enough to ignore the gas light and keep driving, how the hell could I make any claim that it's the auto manufacturer's fault if I get plowed into by other freeway traffic? I think this is similar to the Segway situation, because they're giving you a warning alert, so it becomes a discretionary issue with the individual.
I'm curious to know what Segway intends to do with the units that are sent back for the recall. My guess is that they'll simply modify the Segway to shut down if the battery is low.
There might not be anything fishy going on at all, but that's no reason to stop making perfectly good conspiracy theories.
As a wise sage once told me, "never let the facts get in the way of a good story."
And how good of a story would it be if this were just "some guy got fired because he vocalised his views outside of the company, now that company looks bad which they're not happy about, although this is just like any other employee of any other company going and doing some extremely public thing and thus suggesting that everyone else in the company does that thing too." That wouldn't really be too interesting of a story. But Microsoft! Hmm, let's see, didn't one of the guys who used to work here almost have lunch with somebody who interviewed at Microsoft? That's the connection, right?
Alas, most of journalism and mainstream media is sure to prevent the facts from getting in the way of a good story...
for a group that works with one of the nicest looking operating systems ever, they've really produced a horrible website. my "nice" guess is that they're either colorblind, or a group of teenagers who still lament the loss of the tag (or both).
Not so, young grasshopper. Straight-up Electricity and Magnetism offers the following as a staple equation:
Power = potential difference * current
= V * I
= VI
I hereby invalidate your troll attempt!
Of course a good working knowledge of vi is useful as it's pretty much the lowest common denominator on any Unix-like system.
Very well put.
I first learned vi in 1991, and while it was a steep uphill battle, I crested the hump pretty quickly and have been totally pleased since then. I have always enjoyed having a familiar editor available on just about any system I've touched (Solaris, Ultrix, Unicos, Linux, OSX, Windows).
Sure it's nice to have Emacs configured to do a gazillion things for you, but I liken that to owning a radio, tv, telephone, answering machine, dishwasher, dog walker, maid, bicycle, grocery cart, and dry cleaner all built into one gigantic thing.
No thanks, I just want to edit files...
because everybody knows that Power = VI
even freshman Physics students could tell you that...
Shut up! Shut up, you American! You always talk, you Americans, you talk and you talk and you say, "Let me tell ya something...", and "I've just gotta say this..."
modding instructions:
if you laughed, mod up
if you did not laugh, get off the computer and go watch The Meaning of Life
can't you just imagine a beowulf cluster of G5 Powerbooks?
..."
err, maybe that should be "imagine a cluster of imaginary G5 Powerbooks".
or maybe, "imagine how much heat your lap would be subjected to with a cluster of
ahh, nevermind...
I'm not too suprised to see that Blaster is still running around, even at MIT. I work in an office that's behind a firewall, but it wasn't until yesterday that somebody discovered one of the Blater variants in our internal network. Most likely it was introduced by somebody taking their laptop home, and then back to the office. So what's the big deal? We're a small software house with reasonably intelligent folks working here, but that didn't stop people from a) avoiding the install of Microsoft patches on their office machines, even though these are internal machines and thus "immune" from external traffic, and b) from taking a laptop computer home and using it on a non-firewall protected environment. That we're seeing stuff like this still happening on MIT campus doesn't suprise me. Sure, a good number of /. readers will scoff at this, but there are plenty of intelligent people out there who still think that a firewall will protect them from everything. And that's just the reasonably intelligent people. What about the average, non-technical folks who don't even know what a firewall is? What the heck has to change (other than Microsoft cleaning up Windows, and shutting down all of its stoopid ports) for this kind of things to stop?
I guess he's supposed to be a smarty (even though the article says he followed someone else's instructions on how to build the reactor), but I sure hope he knows what he's doing so his classmates won't have to deal with growing extra legs and stuff...
that's a very good point. Japan, for instance, is widely known to have some of the highest property prices on the planet because there are so many people per unit of land. so if you put a single high-speed connection somewhere, you're going to be reaching far more people than you would if you laid that same amount of cable to a typical, spread-out metropolitan area in the United States.
dsl, for instance, probably sees much higher adoption in areas where population density is high enough for the telcos to justify installing the infrastructure. otherwise, cable is much more cost-effective.
Overall, this is a fairly well written piece. For those who have not yet RTFA, I'd say it's worth your time.
One thing that was not mentioned here, and something that I've been wondering about, is the impact on new CD sales (both real and perceived) that's due to the huge popularity of purchasing used CDs from music stores. Clearly, a record company can only make money if the consumer purchases a new CD. But if I spend my $15-20 on a CD, then sell it to FooBar Music Shop for $6, then you come along and pick it up for $10, we've got a CD purchase that has been diverted from a brand new product to a second-hand one. I only know a handful of folks who really grab music from file sharing networks, but I know a zillion people who have spent a lot of money on a nearly-new CD for $8.
I'm pretty sure that the RIAA has been ignoring any discussion of this trend because there's nothing they can do about it, and therefore they can't drum up support against it. But I suspect this behavior of buying used CDs is responsible for much more of the "slump in CD sales" than we know.
Anyone have any numbers, info, or insights on this?
does one of the shirts say, "just imagine a beowulf cluster of these shirts!"
or how about, "can your shirt run linux?"
An Xbox is made to be used for the purpose of the person who bought it. A bike is meant to take your places, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to take off the wheel and hook it up to a generator (or whatever other creative modification cames up).
Exactly. I posted this on a previous Xbox discussion, but it seems pretty relevant to this one.
What if I decide to use climbing carabiners for some purpose other than climbing, such as hanging a hammock in the backyard? What about using climbing line to hang my laundry? How about using a stack of telephone books (or Physics books) to prop my monitor up a little higher off of my desk? What about using cinder blocks and planks of wood to make a simple bookshelf? What if you use a grocery bag to put trash in? How about using a bedsheet to cover your furniture while you're painting the inside of you apartment/house? What about using a fishing tackle box to store nuts and bolts? What if I decide to take a nap in the back seat of my car? What do you think of using Coca Cola to clean corroded battery terminals?
I think a manufacturer has every right to design, build, market and sell whatever the heck they want. But when a consumer makes a purchase, I do not think it is fair for the manufacturer to have any control of what the consumer does with that item.
I've never heard of this guy, so I just google'd him, and found all kinds of things, including this
interview with him from March 13, 2003, and this brief biography. He is currently vice president of Managed Security Services Operations for Symantec, and previously worked for the U.S. Department of Defense Computer Emergency Response Team (DoD/CERT).
kinda nice to see that the future "Head of Homeland Cybersecurity" at least has a formal c.s. education, and some obvious real-world experience.
My wife had an identical experience installing RedHat on her laptop, things went very well and she was up and running fairly fast. She's used linux as her primary OS before, and has no problems with it.
But due to time constraints these days, she doesn't have the time to track down and fix each little quirk that didn't come out "just right" at install time. Media apps have been problem points, as has her wireless card and our scanner. Linux is a great os for a hobbyist, but when you only want to spend 30-60 minutes per day on your machine accomplishing a few tasks, it's pretty damn annoying to get hung up on this driver missing, or that config thing not set up right, etc.
At this point, she's ready to get an iMac and have it all over with - no more Windows, no more Linux config/install issues, just a clean, secure os that will let her get things done.
> For the researcher to generally state 'way more than 50%' rings alarm bells in my head.
I'm with you on this one, as it seems highly suspicious that this group has been able to produce ultra-efficient solar cells. Beyond that, I don't see the point of integrating these panels into a window - that just seems complex, unnecessary, and certainly has to be more expensive than a regular window paired with a stand-alone solar cell.
My take is that this idea will not succeed. Nobody will be willing to spend the money to replace the windows in existing buildings, and future construction will probably not be interested in spending more money for integrated solar-window things without some reality to back up these efficiency claims.
In fact, this is not only impossible, but unrealistic and rather terrible. Why? Because there will be absolutely no practical way to enforce, encourage, or even suggest uniform "rules" (whatever they might be) in every country around the world.
The article plainly says that we are continually exposed to junk mail, viruses, etc., and this would help to eliminate such things, but one of the reasons that such nuisances exist is because there is no single governing body over the internet. As much as I'd like to see this idea take off and clean things up, I think it will never, ever fly.
Why shouldn't Microsoft have the right to invest in, design, manufacture, and sell a game machine that will play only Microsoft games? Why should you have a "right" to hack such a machine and run non-MS games or Linux on it?
Here's why. First, let's say that we're all OK with Microsoft, or any other company for that matter, making any kind of product they choose, and for any specific purpose.
Instead of talking about an Xbox and hacking it to do different things, I'd like to mention a few other things to help illustrate my point.
What if I decide to use climbing carabiners for some purpose other than climbing, such as hanging a hammock in the backyard? What about using climbing line to hang my laundry? How about using a stack of telephone books (or Physics books) to prop my monitor up a little higher off of my desk? What about using cinder blocks and planks of wood to make a simple bookshelf? What if you use a grocery bag to put trash in? How about using a bedsheet to cover your furniture while you're painting the inside of you apartment/house? What about using a fishing tackle box to store nuts and bolts? What if I decide to take a nap in the back seat of my car? What do you think of using Coca Cola to clean corroded battery terminals?
I'm not trying to troll here, I really am attempting to make a point. I think a manufacturer has every right to design, build, market and sell whatever the heck they want. But when a consumer makes a purchase, I do not think it is fair for the manufacturer to have anything to do with enforcing a specific usage.
Now, obviously, there could be issues of general safety and business abuse, and a company might need to protect themselves for liability or unfair competition. But I can't see the perspective that says Microsoft has any right whatsoever to dictate whether I play games on my Xbox, try to install Linux on it, or just use it as a doorstop.
Having heard countless stories from most of my Indian pals over the years, I'm really curious how much of a difference this GPS plan will make. Sure, it's might be better than the way things are right now, but it seems that the transportation problems are endemic to society and thus not fixable (or even help-able) with something like GPS devices. And this isn't limited to just trains; there are apparently bus accidents all the time, too.
Having not been to India myself, I have to go with my second-hand knowledge and stories I hear, but it pretty much sounds like the Indian economy would never support the kinds of changes required to make mass transit actually safe. I'm interested to hear others' thoughts on this.