This is relatively benign ...
on
Manhattan 1984
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The general idea is that road authorities should be able bill people for their actual use of the roads, with the price depending on when and where they drive and the characteristics of their vehicle.
Technically this is already feasible by ensuring that every single vehicle is equipped with a GPS receiver and a transponder that transmits its identity and its itinerary (in time and space} to collection stations.
As long as there is no congestion, and there are sufficient funds to keep all roads in good condition, the question doesn't appear. It becomes very different however when congestion starts blocking the grid, and when it's hard to find enough money for maintenance (of bridges for example}.
Under current conditions however, there is a strong incentive to toll. And yes... there are privacy aspects.
Where electronically transmitted itineraries could be encrypted to prevent eavesdropping, someone has to do the billing... and that someone can only do that if they can link the vehicle with a driver. And hence they will also be able to link vehicle, diver, and itinerary.
It's not quite there yet, but the signs are that it's only a matter of time. Unless someone can come up with a fool-proof alternative way of putting up the money *and* ensuring an acceptable level of service. In other words: don't count on it not happening.
After all... what's privacy in the face of financial incentives?
But rest assured... there probably will be a capped-fee paying option for those who really don't want their movements tracked and who can afford to pay the national maximum road price per mile where- and whenever they drive. Those subscribes don't need to submit their itineraries... their subscriber ID will do.
The only snag is that the maximum road price will be about 20$ per mile. If your car does 50 mph, that would be 1000$ per hour maximum. So anyone willing (and able} to pay 365 x 24 x 1000$ per year would be allowed un-metered driving any time and any place. Anybody else will have to submit their itineraries and pay a road-use charge.
Oh yes... and don't bore us with complaints that you already pay gasoline tax. What you *pay* in unimportant. What counts is the difference between what's needed for upkeep and congestion management and what's currently available.
The study duly compares a catalogue of possible ways to divert a newly discovered asteroid from its collision course with Earth.
It then ranks the alternatives by their ability to how much speed change ("delta vee"} per second they can apply to the object as a function of the mass of the interceptor vehicle. In this comparison, unsurprisingly, nuclear explosions come out ahead.
What's less clear to me is why "slow" methods are considered less effective. A low "delta vee" applied over a period of a few months or so should also be able to deflect the object from impact.
Is it really warranted to conclude at this stage that nuclear explosions are "way ahead" of other methods?
I'll tell you why I'm a bit sceptical about the "nuclear option". It could provide legitimacy for keeping a few nuclear bombs on standby in orbit. Once we cross that threshold, what's to stop everyone who can slap a nuclear warhead on top of a big rocket (and secretly throw in a re-entry shield when no-one's looking} to put a few nuclear warheads in orbit? Who's to check that someone won't put MIRVs up there?
And besides... I thought that the current crop of (ridiculously expensive} ABM systems focused on intercepting missiles during their boost phase. With orbiting bombs there wouldn't even be the warning of a boost phase.
As everyone knows, an important means for the US to get hold of top scientists and researchers is to attract them... often from abroad. Just look at the engineering faculties such as those at MIT; about half of the Ph.D students are from abroad (India, China, Europe), and about one third to one half of the faculty.
The US continues to be attractive because it tends to offer the best facilities (laboratories, datasets, computers, funding) in the world. Plus it hosts some of the best researchers in the world. Taken together this of course attracts *other* very good researchers. This in turn results in articles that have a higher citation index than most. So far so good.
I believe that the US cannot realistically expect to continue to lead the world in basic scientific research. As a matter of fact, it has lost that position already in a number of fields. What I believe it *can* expect to do is to continue to lead the world in applying research and turning up with innovative products.
Why? Because part of it is cultural. People here are always willing to go out and build something for themselves, which is the essence of starting a business, and society as a whole is very much geared towards giving new ideas and new businesses a chance, weed out the failures, cherish the successes, and let those who failed try again. That's important. In e.g. Europe failure in a business venture attracts a heavy stigma. Not so in the US. In the US it's also relatively easy to hire people for a startup, and to fire them the minute things go wrong, or even if revenues are lower than expected. And last but not least... in the US venture capitalists are thoroughly aware that they must sow ten potatoes to reap one truly outstanding venture, three reasonably ones, and perhaps six poor ones. Unless other countries can copy that, the US is at an advantage.
Now both China and India are busily trying to imitate the US in this respect, and especially China has made a lot of headway. But the US still has the lead. And to be honest... who would want to go the China and learn Chinese when they can also go the to US and use the English they learned in school? Excepting Chinese of course. Ever tried to find your way in China? The US has a big cultural advantage when it comes to competing as a destination of choice.
The undertone of the article is a bit warning of course. Even if one were somehow able to revitalise the US primary and secondary school system *and* make it attractive for Americans to pursue a career in science and/or engineering instead of business management, law, marketing, the military, etc. etc., it would take about two decades for the results to become visible. Personally I would say that the best bet for the US is continue to do what it has traditionally been good at, which is to focus on first attracting and then absorbing those immigrant researchers and turning their research into products.
This is precisely why the US takes such an agressive stance on "Intellectual Property", and does whatever it can to make every country in the world respect US copyrights. It's of strategic importance.
This is also at the heart of the US immigration policy, which runs approximately as follows: "We want those of you if you are the best or one of the best in your field. Those we will welcome to stay, and offer the chance to join the club and become a citizen. Others will be required to enter as illegal immigrants."
Much, if not most, on the subject of "CS or IT" from the point of view of what's in their respective curricula has already been said by other posters so I will skip that aspect.
Instead I will make a few really obvious points about which university to choose.
Obviously you will try to get into the best university your test scores allow. If you are e.g. in a position to go to MIT or Stanford or one of the other top universities... that will be more important in your career than which exact curriculum you take. But you knew that already.
However... in addition to just plopping for the best school you can get into, try to think of how good you are likely to be at your studies. I know it's really hard to say anything sensible about how good you're likely to be at something you've never tried, but do try to bracket yourself {you might use your SAT test scores as an indication}: way way above average, above average to average, average to below average. Be honest with yourself. Then pick a university that will challenge you {if you're not challenged by the course, you're wasting your time}, but won't swamp you {fail the course or pass with poor results and you won't have used your time effectively either}. Remember: not everyone can keep up with the pace at MIT.
In addition, as you indicate, you aim at a position in Industry, not Academia, and probably not Research either, so your ultimate success will be determined by many more personal characteristics than your academic abilities. So don't over-emphasise academic achievements (including curriculum} either.
So here are my suggestions:
{1} try not to aim at a university at the very top of your abilities, but aim just a trifle lower and then try to get lots of A grades and be sure to use the "energy difference" to do something during your study where you can develop those other aspects of yourself. Develop a working rhythm that will allow you to be productive over longer periods yet not be stressed-out or grumpy. Compare the best of abilities with those around you, see where you stand, and plan accordingly. Get to know yourself.
{2}In addition, do something that can show a prospective personnel manager or a project lead that you have initiative and did a good job at something that resembles something they are likely to need.
Summer internships for example. Volunteer work. Work at your prof's company if he/she has one. A clear and visible contribution to an Open Source project perhaps {Google's summer if you are very good at software design and implementation}. Perhaps a summer internship aimed at helping introducing a new software package in a smallish firm near where you live. A term placement in a management consulting firm, a manufacturer or a software house. That will also allow *you* to see how you'd like working there. Perhaps you'll love it, perhaps you'll be disgusted, but you'll know. And above all, make sure you pick something that will get you excited and hence something you are likely to do well in.
{3} Bear in mind that you can do your Bsc and Msc at different universities, and at first try to pick one that's not in the absolute top, but will let you transfer with your credits intact to one of the top schools in case you turn out to be a real star. You never know...
{4} Last but not least: try to postpone committing yourself at this stage. See how much CS and IT have in common during the first year. Good universities will typically be willing to tell you precisely how much first year CS and IT have in common, and what you will need to do to be allowed to switch after the first year. If you can swing it, and if the university allows it, take those courses that will allow you to do an Msc in either direction.
Well... for those outside academia, we'll let you in on a secret. The working language in Science, Engineering, Economics, and Mathematics around the world is... [drumroll please]... English.
You will find no Science, Engineering etc. faculty of repute anywhere around the world where you cannot walk in the door and have a meaningful technical conversation, in English, with just about anyone who is tenured or on a tenure track. It's something the French e.g. don't like, calling it 'cultural imperialism'. Hehe.
And did you have a look at their publications? Did you notice how and where these researchers *publish* their work? Just look at this link and http://www.hortibot.dk/Publications.htm
and look at the publications.
Seven out of eight publications are *in English*. And two out of eight are mere weblisting; of the remaining six 'real' publications, two are in American conference proceedings (the ASABE: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers}. Apparently the good old US of A still counts for something in the field of engineering.
Whatever you might accuse the Bush administration of, neglect of basic teamwork isn't it.
Libby, like the loyal employee he is, dutifully refused to snitch on his boss Cheney and ultimately on Bush himself, so Bush looks after Libby. Basic dawn-of-time loyalties. Everything else is secondary.
The moral? Make sure you're part of a winning team that has the guts to stick together... and you're all but immune from pesky outsiders. Even if they happen to be waving laws.
What I mean with this title is that you cannot understand Microsoft's actions by looking at it from the perspective of someone who wants to produce good products. As in someone who wants to truly push the state of the art as a goal in itself. Someone who wants to 'innovate' to use that bumf-laden word. Microsoft prefers to let start-ups do that for them, select the promising ideas, and then *buy* or *copy* the technology. Which incidentally is why Microsoft is so hostile to the GPL. If any innovative code is GPL'ed, then Microsoft cannot secure an exclusive hold on it, so they cannot use it to shore up their market dominance by creating imperfect competition or their pricing power {see http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ Pricing+Power for a definition of pricing power}.
Hackers and geeks {a sizeable proportion of Slashdot's readership} cannot understand Microsoft's actions because they are driven by emotion {love of tinkering, thinking source code is interesting and attractive, idealism} rather than rational thought. You can understand Microsoft's actions if you look at it from the point of view of a rational actor that tries to {mathematically speaking} maximise revenue, and to obtain that revenue, to either build or maintain sufficient dominance of the market to have that holy grail of marketing: 'pricing power'. You can understand them if you consider them from a marketing point of view. Implicit in which is that you *really* don't care what you sell, as long as it makes a profit. Some people {Slashdotters for example} need to have that, and its implications, explained to them - in small and easy steps... Hence my choice of title.
The notion of Marketing is crucial because it explains another of Microsoft's strategic constraints. Microsoft cannot afford a truly level playing field in the markets in which it operates because in such markets it wouldn't have the dominance and the lock-in that would allow it to exercise pricing power. It would slide from the top of the Delta pyramid to the right-hand side. Bye-bye profit margins.
Implications of marketing considerations for Microsoft actions
People have to realise that Microsoft truly does not care about *what* it ships... as long as it maintains Microsoft's position in the Delta model... which in turn determines it's ability to generate revenue.
Good enough... for Microsoft
Now... as I did not make explicit, but which several posters pointed out, Microsoft's 'Good Enough' means 'Good Enough to allow Microsoft to win in the marketplace while leveraging every other advantage they have'.
What other advantage? Well... control of the PC platform for one thing. MS-Windows is the standard... and largely because it becomes pre-loaded. As in "Hey... it's included, right, so why look further?".
Why does it become pre-loaded? Because people are used to MS Windows, so that pre-loading MS-Windows opens the mass-market. If you doubt the sensitivity and importance of having MS W
It may be sad, but it's really straightforward: Microsoft is a typical profit maximizer. That's their aim. Every activity they do, be it product development, marketing, or plain PR is aligned with that central business goal.
This means simply that Microsoft will generally pour just enough resources into a product to beat the competition and dominate the marketplace. We saw that with the browser war. When it had to overtake Netscape it came up with a good product. After it killed Netscape, and there was practically no other comparable browser, resources were taken off the browser product because it was good enough and there was no sense whatsoever in improving it.
We saw it with the IDE's. When Microsoft had to compete with Borland {Borland Pascal; Borland C/C++} it came up with the 'Visual' IDE. Visual C, Visual Fortran. It was a good IDE, and it won against Borland. After that... it languished. Now... now that we're seeing the Eclipse IDE and SUN's IDE... suddenly Microsoft floors the accelerator again.
The same holds for the Operating System itself. Windows was systematically tailored to capture the eye of consumers and businesses, which it did very well. Never mind that the internals were {and still are} cludgy. What the user sees is the user-interface; that's what sells. Security flaws? Well... as long as there is no competitor to which people can switch while retaining their investment in software and training... security flaws aren't a show-stopper. Getting their own stuff to work was {previous Windows version have so many tightly coupled components that you never knew what would break next when you changed or added anything}, and that's why Jim Allchin very sensibly steered towards a properly engineered Windows. Vista in other words.
Given that we're seeing Linux, OS-X, and Open Solaris competing in more or less the same market we also saw an increased effort from Microsoft to tart up the user interface. Those transparant windows thingies.
This is something fundamental you have to understand about Microsoft. They are calculating folk, and never ever were trailblazers. Tail-light chasers, yes, but never trailblazers. 'Good Enough' is their goal, and their yardstick is... the competition. Why? Because to Microsoft 'Good Enough' means 'Good enough to win in the marketplace and bring in revenue'. That's how Microsoft became so rich.
Now the real problem is... you can't really address the problem by shooting at something. So that makes it a downright un-American issue.
Now here's what to do about it.
First of all the NOAA has to be brought under the Department of Home Security because that's where the money is nowadays. Secondly, submit a {sizeable} donation to to e.g. the Cato institute or an equivalent, and have them bring together a posse of "intelligence experts", who go on record as being "worried" that hurricanes may be caused by Al-Quaeda, or that Al-Quaeda is somehow taking advantage of them. PR campaigns in the media are optional, but be sure to work the lobby circuit.
Then introduce the number of tracked hurricanes as a DOH success metric. That's important because it's a measurable and *achievable* goal.
Now you've created a win-win situation! The DOH gets a clearly visible and achievable success metric [they haven't got all that many of those], and the NOAA gets the funding to track hurricanes in every part of the globe. Problem solved.
Clearly now Ebay is shamelessly ripping off MercExchange's Valuable Intellectual Property! That button to signify "buy at requested maximum price" is the clearly fruit of serious innovation obtained through hard-won research, and recognised as "original" by the widely acclaimed US Patent Office.
Ebay should pay up... and quickly! Best that Ebay simply gives MercExchange it's main bank account and password so that MercExchange can help itself to whatever they feel are reasonable license fees. To avoid unnecessary delays you understand?
It's a rant all right. And a very very stupid one.
First off... or course DRM can work. You know it, I know it. You just need to start with the *hardware*, and make sure that people who buy a computer cannot gain access to OS internals without first having to hack the hardware. And that's no cakewalk. Just remember that it took the resources of an MIT computing lab to hack the hardware of the XBox (see this link http://www.xenatera.com/bunnie/proj/anatak/xboxmod .html. Lesson learned: solder the BIOS chip on the motherboard for maximum security.}
That's called "trusted hardware". Really, does nobody remember Microsoft's Palladium scheme to make Windows work with "trusted hrdware"?
If the entertainment industry needed anyone to make the case that "trusted hardware" is really really necessary to protect their precious content, then this is it. What will your friendly neighbourhood lawmaker say when the RIAA / MPAA wave this rant under their noses and say:
"Told you so... it's either mandatory Palladium and Trusted Hardware or we're dead. Now think of what that will mean in terms of your campaign contributions.
So here's the deal. We don't need you to actually outlaw non-compliant computer hardware, just to make "trusted hardware" and Microsoft's Palladium the standard for *all* Government applications. And make it mandatory for anything connected to the Internet that handles financial transactions, especially including anything that accesses Ebay or can order airline tickets on-line. That's all we ask.
The department of Home Security ought to like that, all banks and credit-card companies ought to like that, and we will bring out our content *only* for trusted hardware. We'll even throw in a 5-year price reduction on content for Trusted Computers. What's not to like eh?".
Crowing about how Joe Schmuck will be able to crack any DRM to illegally copy videos, songs or whatever is of a depth of stupidity that I never thought possible. Much as I respect Jeremy Allison for his work on Samba, there are some people in the Open Source software development that I would gladly do without. For example when they spout this sort of idiocy. Let him go back to writing code instead of trying his had at prose.
And doesn't he realise that with his rant he is indirectly positioning MS Windows as the *only* platform that the content industry can trust to protect it's content behind DRM?
Seriously... doesn't he realise how close we have come {and the danger still isn't passed} of having "trusted hardware" shoved down our collective throats? Palladium anyone? Think that can't happen anymore??? Think again. Just look at Wikipedia and read up on trusted computing {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing}. It's not dead yet.
Isn't anything you can add "working around" a technical limitation?
No it is not. MS deliberately made their free-as-in-beer IDE unable to do certain things that their paying versions *can* do. That is what Jamie's software is not allowed to circumvent as per the EULA. Unfortunately it does, and that makes Jamie vulnerable to legal action.
But he doesn't need to use their licensed software to build or distribute his program--it only applies to users of Express.
As the email exchange between Jamie and Jason shows, Jamie goes on record *admitting* that he used various MS tools, including the Express version of the IDE to create his software.
That he might not be *distributing* any MS software is beside the point. He is distributing software that allows people to circumvent a deliberate limitation in the Express IDE. That's prohibited.
That he might theoretically have created the software while eschewing any MS software is also beside the point. He *did* use licensed MS software and is hence bound by the EULA.
"From: Jamie Cansdale
To: Jason Weber
Cc: Grant Drake, Ben Miller
Date: May 6, 2006 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: Follow-up Information
Jason,
I have just uploaded a new version of TestDriven.Net. For what it's
worth I have removed Express SKU integration. [...].
Regards,
Jamie.
"
There it is... the Express SKU integration was the problem. Jamie knew that and removed it. Regardless of Jamie's position, this shows that there really is something in the Express edition that Jamie's work enabled. As I see it, that's a circumvention of a limitation put in place by Microsoft, and the EULA forbids you to do that.
Oh the joys of using other people's licensed software! This is why Open Source is so appealing.
What he did is build and add-on that -in passing- removes a deliberate limitation that Microsoft built into the "free" version of their development tools.
Now... no matter how he did it, and what legitimately available tools or interfaces he used... he still produced something that removes a technical limitation of the free software package he was working on. Now as far as I can see {but I am not a lawyer} that is a violation of the EULA. And what's more, Microsoft really has a tangible interest in him not doing this.
Moreover, his email correspondence with Microsoft shows that Microsoft pointed out to him that in their view he was violating the EULA, shows that he was *aware* of the EULA and said that he did want to abide by it.
All in all I fear that this is a lost cause. Even if I should be wrong in this, how much would it be worth to you to go to court with Microsoft on their reading of their own EULA? That sounds like a *really* expensive hobby.
I made approximately the same comments on said programmer's website and gently pointed him to the advantages of Open Source in this respect.
Basically your modus operandi takes you back to the good old Fortran ways of coding.
I'll be the first to admit that static (as opposed to dynamic} array allocation is both quicker and less error-prone. Provided, as you already mentioned, that your application allows it. Your "pools" are what Fortran calls "shared common blocks".
The problem that I see is that whenever you are re-using part of your "pools", you are in fact doing something akin to freeing and allocating memory as far as the statespace model of your software is concerned. Only you do it "internally", within the memory space allocated to you by the operating system.
Of course you will avoid your programs crashing due to the operating system shooting them down for accessing memory that was not allocated to them, or from attempting to return memory to the operating system that the program doesn't "own" in the first place.
This is essentially what memory-allocation and memory-freeing crashes amount to, but as far as I can see from the description you give, you can still commit grave "memory allocation" errors in that the variable you use at some place contains the data of some other variable. You just make sure that it happens where no operating system can possibly take offense. That doesn't necessarily mean that your code doesn't contain allocation/deallocation errors.
If any such errors are present, your code will stay up and silently return the wrong answers. Is that an improvement? You be the judge.
Sorry, but the White House really is cherry-picking. To see why, just read the.pdf file referred to, which states:
"Even when carbon dioxide is the only gas evaluated, the EU-
15 does far better than the U.S. over the proper period from 1990 to 2004. U.S. carbon dioxide emissions grew almost 18% over that period, while EU-15 CO2 emissions grew 8.6%."
and goes on to state that:
When any year other than 2000 is selected as the base year, and when all greenhouse gases covered by the UN Framework Convention are included in the analysis, the claims of Horner and the White House that the U.S. is outperforming the EU turn out to be false: the European Union is performing far better than the United States. Over the entire period from 1990 to 2004, the difference is stark. During those 15 years, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions grew more than 15% while emissions from the 15 countries of the European Union (the EU-15) declined by around 1%. Moreover, calculating the index of emissions for any set of years between 1990 and 2004 other than 2000 to 2004, European greenhouse gas emissions either grew more slowly than U.S. emissions or actually declined.
Confusing? Then why not just look at the graph of emissions for all greenhouse gases displayed in the.pdf file?
The line showing US emissions goes up... the trend being just about linear from 1990 to 2004, with a dip between 2000 and 2004 that comes back to the trend by 2004. The line showing EU CO2 emissions wiggles a bit below the index of 100 (i.e. the index relative to 1990], and returns to the index of 100 by 2004.
So... yes... for the time period covered by the dip you can show that the index for the "dipping" series is lower than for the non-dipping one. That's not so much a feature of the data as it is of the presentation. Hence the term "cherry-picking".
Now that's our "how to lie with statistics" lecture for today. Let me summarise for you:
- you have two timeseries, of which you need to show that one is increasing faster {or slower} than the other
- plot both timeseries you want to compare in one graph
- look for a dip in the one you want to "show" is decreasing or increasing slower (or a bump in the one you want to show is increasing or decreasing slower]
- index the timeseries at the start of the dip (or bump] and only take as many data points as are in the dip or the bump. This is important!
- graph the results for that period, or produce those hard-as-nails growth figures
- Just remember to *never* allow any graphs of the whole timeseries to reach your target audience or you will be caught out.
Now... all Microsoft needs to do (and is doing) is to demand license fees for the use of their patents. This won't affect Linux'es availability for anyone who's willing to pay for a license. How much opposition do you think this will engender in corporate America? How outworldish is it to try to monetise your patents? I have this sinking feeling that most of the industry will shrug it off with "Well... we knew they're bastards, but that's why they make such a lot of money.", and simply make sure that their Linux distributions are covered by patent license agreements.
Google
Will Google suddenly litigate 150-odd patents (they won't be using the gui or Open Office, just the kernel), or will it consent to pay, say 15$ a copy in licensing fees? Eh? What would you advise Google's CEO if you were in charge of Legal Affairs?
Novell
Novell has signed this patent-agreement, so wouldn't automatically be required to oppose Microsoft when MS asserts its patents. And what about Red-Hat? Will they charge the windmills?
IBM
And IBM? Will they even be a party in the initial legal battles? I mean... will Microsoft see it as a winning strategy to get into a court battle with IBM about anything they can sue other much smaller companies for first? I'd be surprised.
SUN
And yes, SUN will not take allegations that it's Open Office infringes on Microsoft's patents lying down. But will it take up the cudgels to protect the Linux kernel when it's trying to make a go of Open Solaris? Really?
The little guys
Although I will readily admit that "corporate" use of Linux has helped it along enormously, there are still the "purist" and "hobbyist" distributions. I'm guessing that there are hundreds of small specialised tweaked Linux distributions (ranging from Knoppix to firewalls) brought out by individuals and tiny little companies. That's where Linux shines. And that's where you see the oddball experiments and many of the interesting new developments.
So what are those small guys going to do when they receive a pay-license-fees-or-cease-and-desist nastygram? Their entire assets might just be enough to have a lawyer read the letter and explain to them what it means. My guess is that they will be unable to defend themselves and will quickly fold and withdraw their distros. That alone would be a blow.
The Kernel repositories
And then the Kernel repositories. What are the chances that those will have to take down the infringing portions of their code, if asked? Of course I can't say how likely this might be, as I'm not a lawyer. But Denis Crouch is and his response here ( http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/05/microsoft_ foss_.html) doesn't completely reassure me that Microsoft won't get anywhere.
What does Microsoft have to loose really?
And about other companies giving Micorsoft a hard time... who likes buying Microsoft? A show of hands please!... And now, who of you buy Microsoft because it happens to come with the hardware, and it works after a fashion, and you're locked-in anyway?
Really... what does Microsoft have to loose from some bad publicity when trying to collect licenses on their patents? Somehow I can't even imagine that it would spark off an anti-trust suit, because all the "corporate" Linux distros aren't affected. Microsoft isn't (formally) trying to siderail an opponent, it's trying to get money for patents they own. Well yes, it's lethal to free-as
Really. What I miss from the discussion is the absolutely crucial aspect of control over gadgetry that people think of implanting. Let me explain please.
Q: why would the issue of "control" be relevant at all? A:Control of body implants is an issue because our whole society is based on the idea that people control their own body without any outside agency being able to interfere.
Even more to the point, large parts of the constitution seem to depart from that idea especially where it talks about freedom. An extreme is the right to bear arms, which guarantees our right to wield deadly force in exerting control over our immediate surroundings if we so choose. Now we aren't speaking of our surroundings here, but about our bodies.
As I understand it, one of the fundamental ideas in the constitution is that it seeks to ensure freedom by ensuring individuals control over their own body and their own destiny. Now there is absolutely no trace of any (legal) guarantee, let alone one on par with a constitutional amendment, that would guarantee us control over what is implanted in our own bodies. Without that control our freedom may be compromised by whoever does have control over those implants.
Q: What's the difference between an implant and a piece of paper with the same information? A: Well... a piece of paper would typically require your knowledge and cooperation for anyone to read. Plus you would know that is being read. Electronic implants can typically communicate with the outside without you being aware of the fact, or giving your permission.
And that's only the issue of the talking implants. Suppose you would implant something like a mobile phone in your body. How would you like it to be "hacked"? And supposing you had a blood-sugar control mechanism inside you that dispenses insulin when needed, but one that can communicate with the outside world, have it's firmware updated, and upload performce data to the doctor's computer. How would you like *that* thingy to be hacked?
Q: who might possibly want to have control over our implants? A: That would be impossibly hard to map out in detail. However, every single person or agency out there has his/her/its own agenda which may or may not coincide with your best interests. Even when their interests are perfectly legal and legitimate.
Their interest may be in being automatically aware of your identity when you enter a specific space, knowing whether you entered a specific space, being able to access information placed in your implants by others, etc..
Think of your employer (ID, access information, health information). Think of your insurance company (health information, information on medical visits). Think of your bank (your account information stored into your body and readable at the desk by any teller clerk or bank manager). Think of credit-card organisations (were you there when that contested transaction took place?). Think of marketeers (e.g. personalised bill-board content).
Now when you're done with that, think of pranksters, script kiddies, students and your average teenager. Practically no malicious intent there, just a pressing desire to test the limits.
And finally think of how real criminals (e.g. the Russian mob) might be able to make use of some gizmo inside your body that will talk to the outside without your knowledge or consent.
The problem is that with implants you can't easily wipe them, turn them off, or replace them. Definitely not by an end-user.
Q: Huh? That sounds alarmist. Why should I expect perfectly respectable companies to leave me vulnerable to anything like that? Let them try and I would sue the six ways from Sunday. And others too. A: That's what you might think. But have you ever pictured a company such as Microsoft in charge of the software on your implants? Control of intimate par
You may remember Microsoft bankrolling SCO by buying fairly worthless licenses from it at inflated prices.
Very deniable of course, since Microsoft was only being oh-so careful with other peoples' "Intellectual Property". Nevermind that Microsoft has a long history of being sued for blithely copying other people's code.
Now the SCO scam really lost altitude ever since judge Kimball ruled that SCO had been able to show "no competent evidence" for copyright infringement, and magistrate judge Wells ruled that, no, SCO cannot bring to trial allegations for which they cannot show specific lines of allegedly infringing Linux code. That case is now really a question of how much time and money Flexner Boies and Schiller are willing to spend on a lost cause (their fees have been capped a long time ago in a sudden display of far-sightedness on part of SCO).
So does Microsoft do now? Ah yes... they have been stocking up on patents, of which they seem to have a couple of hundred that were "triggered". By Linux (remember Microsoft's XOR patent and their "not is" patent? With that calibre of patents you can quickly amass a portfolio.)
Now I think we can all agree that the patents that Microsoft is waving are anything but good-faith results of hard work that they would like to protect. On the contrary... they even refuse to disclose what patents are allegedly infringed in order to get a maximum "chilling effect". They clearly don't want revenue... they just want to kill Linux. Not a "good faith" manouver, but who cares? It's "Legal", so they will be able to win in court and then use that to get a national crackdown on all Linux distributions that aren't under the umbrella of firms that they have patent license agreements with.
And quite regardless of what folk here on Slashdot seem to think... it doesn't matter what those patents say and whether they can be upheld on appeal. Appeal of patents takes a looong time (years), and in the mean time there are all those nice shiny letters stating "patent awarded", and they happen to have value. Especially when it comes to demanding injunctions to stop the spread of Linux. Microsoft can now argue that it looses money and market-share to free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-speech Linux because Linux competes with their commercial offerings.
And it only takes one single patent (out of 235) to be found "infringed" by Linux to make whoever distributes, sells, or uses Linux liable for license fees. License fees which only corporate editions of Linux can pay, but free-as-in-beer distros cannot. Therefore their distribution has to be stopped by way of injunctive relief. And this is precisely what Microsoft wants... Linux out of the "free as in speech" domain because of the patent infringements, and only corporate opponents which it can cut to shreds with time-honoured tactics. And no more "free as in beer" distributions for the same reason.
The long and the short of it seems to be that Linux is dead in all countries that allow US style software patents.
Too bad... it has been nice knowing you Linux. We will miss you.
All those who wish to continue to work on and enjoy free-as-in-beer Linux: buy a one-way ticket to a European country of your choice (well... perhaps better buy an open return in case the EU decides to adopt US-style software patents after all).
The OP and the article it refers to make it very clear that the delays are caused by infighting between private companies. Not EU bureaucracies. In fact... the idea is to call on one of those creaking old inefficient EU bureaucracies to actually get things off the ground. Whether that's a good idea is something else.
It's not a question of government versus private enterprise, but one of "too many independent parties"
Your post therefore seems to be largely barking up the wrong tree.
What might have been a much better idea is to give the complete project to one private company and allow it to farm out parts of the work to whomever it sees fit. To US companies as well as EU ones if they are more competitive.
That would result in a radical end to "infighting", a lot more focus, a lot more "bang for the buck", and would also avoid entrusting what is essentially a manufacturing process to a government agency. Look at Arianespace. It works, and it works well.
The problem is of course: which company? Give the whole thing to a French company, and the Germans will growl. Give it to a German company, and the French will mutiny. Give it to a British company, and both will shout;-). That's the real problem.
*sighs* There we go again... someone triggered the "Governments are socialist evil" reflex, and yes... up pops someone to say that "No government can tell a company...".
I'm afraid that this sort of response is just what Microsofts engineered in the first place... for those with short memories and a limited appreciation of what is going on here. So... please take the time to read up on the whole case, and _then_ sund off.
(1) The whole case began when Microsoft violated the EU fair-competition laws by withholding essential protocol information required to make other software products interoperable with Windows special flavour of the SMB protocol. And no, this does not include source code... it merely describes the plug you need to let third-party software components interoperate with Microsoft Server and Microsoft Windows in a Microsoft Server environment.
(2) It is Microsoft that has been "gaming the system" for about three years now, using all procedural options to dicker, cavill, and waste time all with the intention of letting so much time pass that new facts on the ground are created (read closing the window of opportunity for competitors to offer interoperable software) and thus to freeze competitors out of the market.
When finally forced, by threats and fines, to open up their protocol specification, they have taken action to ensure that: (a) the information they give out is as tardy, deficient, obfuscated, and useless as they can possibly make it (b) they can *price* the information they are obliged to make available in the first place, aimed squarely at excluding Open Source software.
Of course this was never the spirit of the EU fair-competition laws, but like any good commercial organisation, Microsoft is doing absolutely anything that will not actually get them fined or jailed to make certain that they can use all the loopholes contained in the _letter_ of the law to get away with non-compliance.
(3) It is Microsoft which has been using "pricing" as a means to ensure that Open Source Software _cannot_ be fully inter-operable with Microsoft Server (from the article: "Some individual technologies within the premium tier, such as Kerberos authentication, are actually free of charge; though others, such as Base Authentication Services (used to grant authentication to clients accessing Windows Server resources) are relatively expensive - as high as $17.50 per server seat. (The complete proposed rate table is available in this PDF document.)".
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft is hiding behind the letter of (patent and copyright) law as follows: They take an open, documented, protocol (say SMB, which was developed by IBM by the way), extend it with things that delve deeply into the internals of MS Windows, and then say that it is "proprietary technology", and refuse to reveal how to be inter-operable.
The commonsense conclusion is that there is no innovative content in the new protocol, just a crafty way of commingling so much of their truly proprietary code into it that it anyone making something inter-operable will (a) infringe on their patents or (b) need copyrighted information from Microsoft. I believe that the EU is fully justified in refusing to fall for this formalistic trick and to allow Microsoft to make an end-run around the fair-competition laws.
(5) Besides Microsoft seems to have _promised_ the EU not to charge based only on patentability:
"But the EU Commission said in March that Microsoft agreed to base Windows Server protocol pricing on innovation, not patentability, adding that some protocols are not innovative enough to warrant a premium charge. The Commission also said that those protocols which aren't patentable should not require a fee at all.
In acknowledging the work of its designated trustee, Dr. Neil Barrett, the EU said it examined 160 Microsoft claims to patented technologies, and conclu
As far as I can see, this simply means that Microsoft is having to compete on _price_ instead of features, usability, and quality. I am interpreting this as a tacit acknowledgement by Microsoft that the best desktop Linux distributions are now comparable with Windows XP in terms of looks, features, quality, and usability.
Dumping Windows XP in the third-world (well... China third-world ???... but you know what I mean) educational market to keep those users from getting used to Linux is probably a very smart move on part of Microsoft.
Why? Windows still has the advantage in terms of third-party software and market share but Vista cannot compete for market-share with Linux in third-world countries at first-world prices, and it has become a bit too hard to make and sell illegal copies for comfort so that avenue is closed too. Market-share is important because that's all that keeps people choosing MS Windows instead of something else. In addition it keeps Linux from becoming so ubiquitous that it becomes really lucrative to develop commercial software for it.
Now... dumping Vista for 3$ would really harm Vista's image and potentially put pressure on Microsoft's revenue stream in other markets.
So... by dumping the previous WIndows version, Windows XP, Microsoft gets to compete for marketshare with Linux in a third-world market without tarnishing Vista's image, without loss of revenue, and without fuelling large-scale piracy. The price gives you only the license, and that in large volues, so the net cost to Microsoft is about 0$. In addition, the government is to be suckered into subsidising the hardware of the PC by about 50%, so that end-users will have a huge incentive to go with the offer.
By the time the net disposable income in China has reached levels where people will pay first-world prices, there will be this huge reservoir of people who are beautifully conditioned to MS Windows and who will have invested too much time and effort in Windows-only software to easily switch to Linux.
Is there a downside for Microsoft? I don't see it.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically this is already feasible by ensuring that every single vehicle is equipped with a GPS receiver and a transponder that transmits its identity and its itinerary (in time and space} to collection stations.
As long as there is no congestion, and there are sufficient funds to keep all roads in good condition, the question doesn't appear. It becomes very different however when congestion starts blocking the grid, and when it's hard to find enough money for maintenance (of bridges for example}.
Under current conditions however, there is a strong incentive to toll. And yes ... there are privacy aspects.
Where electronically transmitted itineraries could be encrypted to prevent eavesdropping, someone has to do the billing ... and that someone can only do that if they can link the vehicle with a driver. And hence they will also be able to link vehicle, diver, and itinerary.
It's not quite there yet, but the signs are that it's only a matter of time. Unless someone can come up with a fool-proof alternative way of putting up the money *and* ensuring an acceptable level of service. In other words: don't count on it not happening.
After all ... what's privacy in the face of financial incentives?
But rest assured ... there probably will be a capped-fee paying option for those who really don't want their movements tracked and who can afford to pay the national maximum road price per mile where- and whenever they drive. Those subscribes don't need to submit their itineraries ... their subscriber ID will do.
The only snag is that the maximum road price will be about 20$ per mile. If your car does 50 mph, that would be 1000$ per hour maximum. So anyone willing (and able} to pay 365 x 24 x 1000$ per year would be allowed un-metered driving any time and any place. Anybody else will have to submit their itineraries and pay a road-use charge.
Oh yes ... and don't bore us with complaints that you already pay gasoline tax. What you *pay* in unimportant. What counts is the difference between what's needed for upkeep and congestion management and what's currently available.
It then ranks the alternatives by their ability to how much speed change ("delta vee"} per second they can apply to the object as a function of the mass of the interceptor vehicle. In this comparison, unsurprisingly, nuclear explosions come out ahead.
What's less clear to me is why "slow" methods are considered less effective. A low "delta vee" applied over a period of a few months or so should also be able to deflect the object from impact.
Is it really warranted to conclude at this stage that nuclear explosions are "way ahead" of other methods?
I'll tell you why I'm a bit sceptical about the "nuclear option". It could provide legitimacy for keeping a few nuclear bombs on standby in orbit. Once we cross that threshold, what's to stop everyone who can slap a nuclear warhead on top of a big rocket (and secretly throw in a re-entry shield when no-one's looking} to put a few nuclear warheads in orbit? Who's to check that someone won't put MIRVs up there?
And besides ... I thought that the current crop of (ridiculously expensive} ABM systems focused on intercepting missiles during their boost phase. With orbiting bombs there wouldn't even be the warning of a boost phase.
Any comments from knowledgeable people?
The US continues to be attractive because it tends to offer the best facilities (laboratories, datasets, computers, funding) in the world. Plus it hosts some of the best researchers in the world. Taken together this of course attracts *other* very good researchers. This in turn results in articles that have a higher citation index than most. So far so good.
I believe that the US cannot realistically expect to continue to lead the world in basic scientific research. As a matter of fact, it has lost that position already in a number of fields. What I believe it *can* expect to do is to continue to lead the world in applying research and turning up with innovative products.
Why? Because part of it is cultural. People here are always willing to go out and build something for themselves, which is the essence of starting a business, and society as a whole is very much geared towards giving new ideas and new businesses a chance, weed out the failures, cherish the successes, and let those who failed try again. That's important. In e.g. Europe failure in a business venture attracts a heavy stigma. Not so in the US. In the US it's also relatively easy to hire people for a startup, and to fire them the minute things go wrong, or even if revenues are lower than expected. And last but not least ... in the US venture capitalists are thoroughly aware that they must sow ten potatoes to reap one truly outstanding venture, three reasonably ones, and perhaps six poor ones. Unless other countries can copy that, the US is at an advantage.
Now both China and India are busily trying to imitate the US in this respect, and especially China has made a lot of headway. But the US still has the lead. And to be honest ... who would want to go the China and learn Chinese when they can also go the to US and use the English they learned in school? Excepting Chinese of course. Ever tried to find your way in China? The US has a big cultural advantage when it comes to competing as a destination of choice.
The undertone of the article is a bit warning of course. Even if one were somehow able to revitalise the US primary and secondary school system *and* make it attractive for Americans to pursue a career in science and/or engineering instead of business management, law, marketing, the military, etc. etc., it would take about two decades for the results to become visible. Personally I would say that the best bet for the US is continue to do what it has traditionally been good at, which is to focus on first attracting and then absorbing those immigrant researchers and turning their research into products.
This is precisely why the US takes such an agressive stance on "Intellectual Property", and does whatever it can to make every country in the world respect US copyrights. It's of strategic importance.
This is also at the heart of the US immigration policy, which runs approximately as follows: "We want those of you if you are the best or one of the best in your field. Those we will welcome to stay, and offer the chance to join the club and become a citizen. Others will be required to enter as illegal immigrants."
It's a bit parasitic, but it works.
Instead I will make a few really obvious points about which university to choose.
Obviously you will try to get into the best university your test scores allow. If you are e.g. in a position to go to MIT or Stanford or one of the other top universities ... that will be more important in your career than which exact curriculum you take. But you knew that already.
However ... in addition to just plopping for the best school you can get into, try to think of how good you are likely to be at your studies. I know it's really hard to say anything sensible about how good you're likely to be at something you've never tried, but do try to bracket yourself {you might use your SAT test scores as an indication}: way way above average, above average to average, average to below average. Be honest with yourself. Then pick a university that will challenge you {if you're not challenged by the course, you're wasting your time}, but won't swamp you {fail the course or pass with poor results and you won't have used your time effectively either}. Remember: not everyone can keep up with the pace at MIT.
In addition, as you indicate, you aim at a position in Industry, not Academia, and probably not Research either, so your ultimate success will be determined by many more personal characteristics than your academic abilities. So don't over-emphasise academic achievements (including curriculum} either.
So here are my suggestions:
{1} try not to aim at a university at the very top of your abilities, but aim just a trifle lower and then try to get lots of A grades and be sure to use the "energy difference" to do something during your study where you can develop those other aspects of yourself. Develop a working rhythm that will allow you to be productive over longer periods yet not be stressed-out or grumpy. Compare the best of abilities with those around you, see where you stand, and plan accordingly. Get to know yourself.
{2}In addition, do something that can show a prospective personnel manager or a project lead that you have initiative and did a good job at something that resembles something they are likely to need.
Summer internships for example. Volunteer work. Work at your prof's company if he/she has one. A clear and visible contribution to an Open Source project perhaps {Google's summer if you are very good at software design and implementation}. Perhaps a summer internship aimed at helping introducing a new software package in a smallish firm near where you live. A term placement in a management consulting firm, a manufacturer or a software house. That will also allow *you* to see how you'd like working there. Perhaps you'll love it, perhaps you'll be disgusted, but you'll know. And above all, make sure you pick something that will get you excited and hence something you are likely to do well in.
{3} Bear in mind that you can do your Bsc and Msc at different universities, and at first try to pick one that's not in the absolute top, but will let you transfer with your credits intact to one of the top schools in case you turn out to be a real star. You never know ...
{4} Last but not least: try to postpone committing yourself at this stage. See how much CS and IT have in common during the first year. Good universities will typically be willing to tell you precisely how much first year CS and IT have in common, and what you will need to do to be allowed to switch after the first year. If you can swing it, and if the university allows it, take those courses that will allow you to do an Msc in either direction.
This glorious software revolution heralds the liberation of the managing proletariat !
No longer shall the downtrodden managers be shackled in the chains of their ignorance!
No longer shall they be cuckolded and deceived by a caste of cynical hoarders of knowledge !
Fear not managers, you have nothing to loose but your ignorance !
This software shall be the sword and shield of management committees everywhere !
Well ... for those outside academia, we'll let you in on a secret. The working language in Science, Engineering, Economics, and Mathematics around the world is ... [drumroll please] ... English.
You will find no Science, Engineering etc. faculty of repute anywhere around the world where you cannot walk in the door and have a meaningful technical conversation, in English, with just about anyone who is tenured or on a tenure track. It's something the French e.g. don't like, calling it 'cultural imperialism'. Hehe.
And did you have a look at their publications? Did you notice how and where these researchers *publish* their work? Just look at this link and http://www.hortibot.dk/Publications.htm and look at the publications.
Seven out of eight publications are *in English*. And two out of eight are mere weblisting; of the remaining six 'real' publications, two are in American conference proceedings (the ASABE: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers}. Apparently the good old US of A still counts for something in the field of engineering.
http://www.hortibot.dk/index.html
Libby, like the loyal employee he is, dutifully refused to snitch on his boss Cheney and ultimately on Bush himself, so Bush looks after Libby. Basic dawn-of-time loyalties. Everything else is secondary.
The moral? Make sure you're part of a winning team that has the guts to stick together ... and you're all but immune from pesky outsiders. Even if they happen to be waving laws.
What I mean with this title is that you cannot understand Microsoft's actions by looking at it from the perspective of someone who wants to produce good products. As in someone who wants to truly push the state of the art as a goal in itself. Someone who wants to 'innovate' to use that bumf-laden word. Microsoft prefers to let start-ups do that for them, select the promising ideas, and then *buy* or *copy* the technology. Which incidentally is why Microsoft is so hostile to the GPL. If any innovative code is GPL'ed, then Microsoft cannot secure an exclusive hold on it, so they cannot use it to shore up their market dominance by creating imperfect competition or their pricing power {see http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ Pricing+Power for a definition of pricing power}.
For background reading, see: http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/A82DB83B-1F43-4EEB -8311-CC93A1B0245C/0/deltamodel.pdf for a description of the "Delta model" of strategic positioning, and note the position of Intel and Microsoft in the graph on page 3.
Rational actors versus emotional ones
Hackers and geeks {a sizeable proportion of Slashdot's readership} cannot understand Microsoft's actions because they are driven by emotion {love of tinkering, thinking source code is interesting and attractive, idealism} rather than rational thought. You can understand Microsoft's actions if you look at it from the point of view of a rational actor that tries to {mathematically speaking} maximise revenue, and to obtain that revenue, to either build or maintain sufficient dominance of the market to have that holy grail of marketing: 'pricing power'. You can understand them if you consider them from a marketing point of view. Implicit in which is that you *really* don't care what you sell, as long as it makes a profit. Some people {Slashdotters for example} need to have that, and its implications, explained to them - in small and easy steps... Hence my choice of title.
A marketing point of view
See e.g. http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Sloan-School-of-Manageme nt/15-810Spring-2005/CourseHome/index.htm for introductory background material on marketing.
The notion of Marketing is crucial because it explains another of Microsoft's strategic constraints. Microsoft cannot afford a truly level playing field in the markets in which it operates because in such markets it wouldn't have the dominance and the lock-in that would allow it to exercise pricing power. It would slide from the top of the Delta pyramid to the right-hand side. Bye-bye profit margins.
Implications of marketing considerations for Microsoft actions
People have to realise that Microsoft truly does not care about *what* it ships ... as long as it maintains Microsoft's position in the Delta model ... which in turn determines it's ability to generate revenue.
Good enough ... for Microsoft
Now ... as I did not make explicit, but which several posters pointed out, Microsoft's 'Good Enough' means 'Good Enough to allow Microsoft to win in the marketplace while leveraging every other advantage they have'.
What other advantage? Well ... control of the PC platform for one thing. MS-Windows is the standard ... and largely because it becomes pre-loaded. As in "Hey ... it's included, right, so why look further?".
Why does it become pre-loaded? Because people are used to MS Windows, so that pre-loading MS-Windows opens the mass-market. If you doubt the sensitivity and importance of having MS W
This means simply that Microsoft will generally pour just enough resources into a product to beat the competition and dominate the marketplace. We saw that with the browser war. When it had to overtake Netscape it came up with a good product. After it killed Netscape, and there was practically no other comparable browser, resources were taken off the browser product because it was good enough and there was no sense whatsoever in improving it.
We saw it with the IDE's. When Microsoft had to compete with Borland {Borland Pascal; Borland C/C++} it came up with the 'Visual' IDE. Visual C, Visual Fortran. It was a good IDE, and it won against Borland. After that ... it languished. Now ... now that we're seeing the Eclipse IDE and SUN's IDE ... suddenly Microsoft floors the accelerator again.
The same holds for the Operating System itself. Windows was systematically tailored to capture the eye of consumers and businesses, which it did very well. Never mind that the internals were {and still are} cludgy. What the user sees is the user-interface; that's what sells. Security flaws? Well ... as long as there is no competitor to which people can switch while retaining their investment in software and training ... security flaws aren't a show-stopper. Getting their own stuff to work was {previous Windows version have so many tightly coupled components that you never knew what would break next when you changed or added anything}, and that's why Jim Allchin very sensibly steered towards a properly engineered Windows. Vista in other words.
Given that we're seeing Linux, OS-X, and Open Solaris competing in more or less the same market we also saw an increased effort from Microsoft to tart up the user interface. Those transparant windows thingies.
This is something fundamental you have to understand about Microsoft. They are calculating folk, and never ever were trailblazers. Tail-light chasers, yes, but never trailblazers. 'Good Enough' is their goal, and their yardstick is ... the competition. Why? Because to Microsoft 'Good Enough' means 'Good enough to win in the marketplace and bring in revenue'. That's how Microsoft became so rich.
Now the real problem is ... you can't really address the problem by shooting at something. So that makes it a downright un-American issue.
Now here's what to do about it.
First of all the NOAA has to be brought under the Department of Home Security because that's where the money is nowadays. Secondly, submit a {sizeable} donation to to e.g. the Cato institute or an equivalent, and have them bring together a posse of "intelligence experts", who go on record as being "worried" that hurricanes may be caused by Al-Quaeda, or that Al-Quaeda is somehow taking advantage of them. PR campaigns in the media are optional, but be sure to work the lobby circuit.
Then introduce the number of tracked hurricanes as a DOH success metric. That's important because it's a measurable and *achievable* goal.
Now you've created a win-win situation! The DOH gets a clearly visible and achievable success metric [they haven't got all that many of those], and the NOAA gets the funding to track hurricanes in every part of the globe. Problem solved.
Clearly now Ebay is shamelessly ripping off MercExchange's Valuable Intellectual Property! That button to signify "buy at requested maximum price" is the clearly fruit of serious innovation obtained through hard-won research, and recognised as "original" by the widely acclaimed US Patent Office.
Ebay should pay up ... and quickly! Best that Ebay simply gives MercExchange it's main bank account and password so that MercExchange can help itself to whatever they feel are reasonable license fees. To avoid unnecessary delays you understand?
First off ... or course DRM can work. You know it, I know it. You just need to start with the *hardware*, and make sure that people who buy a computer cannot gain access to OS internals without first having to hack the hardware. And that's no cakewalk. Just remember that it took the resources of an MIT computing lab to hack the hardware of the XBox (see this link http://www.xenatera.com/bunnie/proj/anatak/xboxmod .html. Lesson learned: solder the BIOS chip on the motherboard for maximum security.}
That's called "trusted hardware". Really, does nobody remember Microsoft's Palladium scheme to make Windows work with "trusted hrdware"?
If the entertainment industry needed anyone to make the case that "trusted hardware" is really really necessary to protect their precious content, then this is it. What will your friendly neighbourhood lawmaker say when the RIAA / MPAA wave this rant under their noses and say:
"Told you so ... it's either mandatory Palladium and Trusted Hardware or we're dead. Now think of what that will mean in terms of your campaign contributions.
So here's the deal. We don't need you to actually outlaw non-compliant computer hardware, just to make "trusted hardware" and Microsoft's Palladium the standard for *all* Government applications. And make it mandatory for anything connected to the Internet that handles financial transactions, especially including anything that accesses Ebay or can order airline tickets on-line. That's all we ask.
The department of Home Security ought to like that, all banks and credit-card companies ought to like that, and we will bring out our content *only* for trusted hardware. We'll even throw in a 5-year price reduction on content for Trusted Computers. What's not to like eh?".
Crowing about how Joe Schmuck will be able to crack any DRM to illegally copy videos, songs or whatever is of a depth of stupidity that I never thought possible. Much as I respect Jeremy Allison for his work on Samba, there are some people in the Open Source software development that I would gladly do without. For example when they spout this sort of idiocy. Let him go back to writing code instead of trying his had at prose.
And doesn't he realise that with his rant he is indirectly positioning MS Windows as the *only* platform that the content industry can trust to protect it's content behind DRM?
Seriously ... doesn't he realise how close we have come {and the danger still isn't passed} of having "trusted hardware" shoved down our collective throats? Palladium anyone? Think that can't happen anymore??? Think again. Just look at Wikipedia and read up on trusted computing {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing}. It's not dead yet.
Isn't anything you can add "working around" a technical limitation?
No it is not. MS deliberately made their free-as-in-beer IDE unable to do certain things that their paying versions *can* do. That is what Jamie's software is not allowed to circumvent as per the EULA. Unfortunately it does, and that makes Jamie vulnerable to legal action.
But he doesn't need to use their licensed software to build or distribute his program--it only applies to users of Express.
As the email exchange between Jamie and Jason shows, Jamie goes on record *admitting* that he used various MS tools, including the Express version of the IDE to create his software.
That he might not be *distributing* any MS software is beside the point. He is distributing software that allows people to circumvent a deliberate limitation in the Express IDE. That's prohibited.
That he might theoretically have created the software while eschewing any MS software is also beside the point. He *did* use licensed MS software and is hence bound by the EULA.
I'm taking Jamie's word for it (see the email correspondene that Jamie published here} http://www.mutantdesign.co.uk/downloads/ExpressEma ils2.html:
"From: Jamie Cansdale To: Jason Weber Cc: Grant Drake, Ben Miller Date: May 6, 2006 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: Follow-up Information
Jason,
I have just uploaded a new version of TestDriven.Net. For what it's worth I have removed Express SKU integration. [...].
Regards,
Jamie. "
There it is ... the Express SKU integration was the problem. Jamie knew that and removed it. Regardless of Jamie's position, this shows that there really is something in the Express edition that Jamie's work enabled. As I see it, that's a circumvention of a limitation put in place by Microsoft, and the EULA forbids you to do that.
Oh the joys of using other people's licensed software! This is why Open Source is so appealing.
What he did is build and add-on that -in passing- removes a deliberate limitation that Microsoft built into the "free" version of their development tools.
Now ... no matter how he did it, and what legitimately available tools or interfaces he used ... he still produced something that removes a technical limitation of the free software package he was working on. Now as far as I can see {but I am not a lawyer} that is a violation of the EULA. And what's more, Microsoft really has a tangible interest in him not doing this.
Moreover, his email correspondence with Microsoft shows that Microsoft pointed out to him that in their view he was violating the EULA, shows that he was *aware* of the EULA and said that he did want to abide by it.
All in all I fear that this is a lost cause. Even if I should be wrong in this, how much would it be worth to you to go to court with Microsoft on their reading of their own EULA? That sounds like a *really* expensive hobby.
I made approximately the same comments on said programmer's website and gently pointed him to the advantages of Open Source in this respect.
I'll be the first to admit that static (as opposed to dynamic} array allocation is both quicker and less error-prone. Provided, as you already mentioned, that your application allows it. Your "pools" are what Fortran calls "shared common blocks".
The problem that I see is that whenever you are re-using part of your "pools", you are in fact doing something akin to freeing and allocating memory as far as the statespace model of your software is concerned. Only you do it "internally", within the memory space allocated to you by the operating system.
Of course you will avoid your programs crashing due to the operating system shooting them down for accessing memory that was not allocated to them, or from attempting to return memory to the operating system that the program doesn't "own" in the first place.
This is essentially what memory-allocation and memory-freeing crashes amount to, but as far as I can see from the description you give, you can still commit grave "memory allocation" errors in that the variable you use at some place contains the data of some other variable. You just make sure that it happens where no operating system can possibly take offense. That doesn't necessarily mean that your code doesn't contain allocation/deallocation errors.
If any such errors are present, your code will stay up and silently return the wrong answers. Is that an improvement? You be the judge.
"Even when carbon dioxide is the only gas evaluated, the EU- 15 does far better than the U.S. over the proper period from 1990 to 2004. U.S. carbon dioxide emissions grew almost 18% over that period, while EU-15 CO2 emissions grew 8.6%."
and goes on to state that:
When any year other than 2000 is selected as the base year, and when all greenhouse gases covered by the UN Framework Convention are included in the analysis, the claims of Horner and the White House that the U.S. is outperforming the EU turn out to be false: the European Union is performing far better than the United States. Over the entire period from 1990 to 2004, the difference is stark. During those 15 years, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions grew more than 15% while emissions from the 15 countries of the European Union (the EU-15) declined by around 1%. Moreover, calculating the index of emissions for any set of years between 1990 and 2004 other than 2000 to 2004, European greenhouse gas emissions either grew more slowly than U.S. emissions or actually declined.
Confusing? Then why not just look at the graph of emissions for all greenhouse gases displayed in the .pdf file?
The line showing US emissions goes up ... the trend being just about linear from 1990 to 2004, with a dip between 2000 and 2004 that comes back to the trend by 2004. The line showing EU CO2 emissions wiggles a bit below the index of 100 (i.e. the index relative to 1990], and returns to the index of 100 by 2004.
So ... yes ... for the time period covered by the dip you can show that the index for the "dipping" series is lower than for the non-dipping one. That's not so much a feature of the data as it is of the presentation. Hence the term "cherry-picking".
Now that's our "how to lie with statistics" lecture for today. Let me summarise for you:
- you have two timeseries, of which you need to show that one is increasing faster {or slower} than the other
- plot both timeseries you want to compare in one graph
- look for a dip in the one you want to "show" is decreasing or increasing slower (or a bump in the one you want to show is increasing or decreasing slower]
- index the timeseries at the start of the dip (or bump] and only take as many data points as are in the dip or the bump. This is important!
- graph the results for that period, or produce those hard-as-nails growth figures
- Just remember to *never* allow any graphs of the whole timeseries to reach your target audience or you will be caught out.
Yes, that's it" "No lawsuits" ... according to senior Microsoft Executives.
In addition there is a retort by Linus, here http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jh tml?articleID=199600443
and a scathing reply by OIN here, http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/press_release. php
and the ever insightful replies on Groklaw here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200705151 25107293
It seems that this was again a case of Microsoft FUD and hot air. For which we can all be mighty gratefull I should think.
Now ... all Microsoft needs to do (and is doing) is to demand license fees for the use of their patents. This won't affect Linux'es availability for anyone who's willing to pay for a license. How much opposition do you think this will engender in corporate America? How outworldish is it to try to monetise your patents? I have this sinking feeling that most of the industry will shrug it off with "Well ... we knew they're bastards, but that's why they make such a lot of money.", and simply make sure that their Linux distributions are covered by patent license agreements.
Google
Will Google suddenly litigate 150-odd patents (they won't be using the gui or Open Office, just the kernel), or will it consent to pay, say 15$ a copy in licensing fees? Eh? What would you advise Google's CEO if you were in charge of Legal Affairs?
Novell
Novell has signed this patent-agreement, so wouldn't automatically be required to oppose Microsoft when MS asserts its patents. And what about Red-Hat? Will they charge the windmills?
IBM ... will Microsoft see it as a winning strategy to get into a court battle with IBM about anything they can sue other much smaller companies for first? I'd be surprised.
And IBM? Will they even be a party in the initial legal battles? I mean
SUN
And yes, SUN will not take allegations that it's Open Office infringes on Microsoft's patents lying down. But will it take up the cudgels to protect the Linux kernel when it's trying to make a go of Open Solaris? Really?
The little guys
Although I will readily admit that "corporate" use of Linux has helped it along enormously, there are still the "purist" and "hobbyist" distributions. I'm guessing that there are hundreds of small specialised tweaked Linux distributions (ranging from Knoppix to firewalls) brought out by individuals and tiny little companies. That's where Linux shines. And that's where you see the oddball experiments and many of the interesting new developments.
So what are those small guys going to do when they receive a pay-license-fees-or-cease-and-desist nastygram? Their entire assets might just be enough to have a lawyer read the letter and explain to them what it means. My guess is that they will be unable to defend themselves and will quickly fold and withdraw their distros. That alone would be a blow.
The Kernel repositories
And then the Kernel repositories. What are the chances that those will have to take down the infringing portions of their code, if asked? Of course I can't say how likely this might be, as I'm not a lawyer. But Denis Crouch is and his response here ( http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/05/microsoft_ foss_.html) doesn't completely reassure me that Microsoft won't get anywhere.
What does Microsoft have to loose really? ... who likes buying Microsoft? A show of hands please! ... And now, who of you buy Microsoft because it happens to come with the hardware, and it works after a fashion, and you're locked-in anyway?
And about other companies giving Micorsoft a hard time
Really ... what does Microsoft have to loose from some bad publicity when trying to collect licenses on their patents? Somehow I can't even imagine that it would spark off an anti-trust suit, because all the "corporate" Linux distros aren't affected. Microsoft isn't (formally) trying to siderail an opponent, it's trying to get money for patents they own. Well yes, it's lethal to free-as
Q: why would the issue of "control" be relevant at all?
A: Control of body implants is an issue because our whole society is based on the idea that people control their own body without any outside agency being able to interfere.
Even more to the point, large parts of the constitution seem to depart from that idea especially where it talks about freedom. An extreme is the right to bear arms, which guarantees our right to wield deadly force in exerting control over our immediate surroundings if we so choose. Now we aren't speaking of our surroundings here, but about our bodies.
As I understand it, one of the fundamental ideas in the constitution is that it seeks to ensure freedom by ensuring individuals control over their own body and their own destiny. Now there is absolutely no trace of any (legal) guarantee, let alone one on par with a constitutional amendment, that would guarantee us control over what is implanted in our own bodies. Without that control our freedom may be compromised by whoever does have control over those implants.
Q: What's the difference between an implant and a piece of paper with the same information? ... a piece of paper would typically require your knowledge and cooperation for anyone to read. Plus you would know that is being read. Electronic implants can typically communicate with the outside without you being aware of the fact, or giving your permission.
A: Well
And that's only the issue of the talking implants. Suppose you would implant something like a mobile phone in your body. How would you like it to be "hacked"? And supposing you had a blood-sugar control mechanism inside you that dispenses insulin when needed, but one that can communicate with the outside world, have it's firmware updated, and upload performce data to the doctor's computer. How would you like *that* thingy to be hacked?
Q: who might possibly want to have control over our implants?
A: That would be impossibly hard to map out in detail. However, every single person or agency out there has his/her/its own agenda which may or may not coincide with your best interests. Even when their interests are perfectly legal and legitimate.
Their interest may be in being automatically aware of your identity when you enter a specific space, knowing whether you entered a specific space, being able to access information placed in your implants by others, etc..
Think of your employer (ID, access information, health information). Think of your insurance company (health information, information on medical visits). Think of your bank (your account information stored into your body and readable at the desk by any teller clerk or bank manager). Think of credit-card organisations (were you there when that contested transaction took place?). Think of marketeers (e.g. personalised bill-board content).
Now when you're done with that, think of pranksters, script kiddies, students and your average teenager. Practically no malicious intent there, just a pressing desire to test the limits.
And finally think of how real criminals (e.g. the Russian mob) might be able to make use of some gizmo inside your body that will talk to the outside without your knowledge or consent.
The problem is that with implants you can't easily wipe them, turn them off, or replace them. Definitely not by an end-user.
Q: Huh? That sounds alarmist. Why should I expect perfectly respectable companies to leave me vulnerable to anything like that? Let them try and I would sue the six ways from Sunday. And others too.
A: That's what you might think. But have you ever pictured a company such as Microsoft in charge of the software on your implants? Control of intimate par
Very deniable of course, since Microsoft was only being oh-so careful with other peoples' "Intellectual Property". Nevermind that Microsoft has a long history of being sued for blithely copying other people's code.
Now the SCO scam really lost altitude ever since judge Kimball ruled that SCO had been able to show "no competent evidence" for copyright infringement, and magistrate judge Wells ruled that, no, SCO cannot bring to trial allegations for which they cannot show specific lines of allegedly infringing Linux code. That case is now really a question of how much time and money Flexner Boies and Schiller are willing to spend on a lost cause (their fees have been capped a long time ago in a sudden display of far-sightedness on part of SCO).
So does Microsoft do now? Ah yes ... they have been stocking up on patents, of which they seem to have a couple of hundred that were "triggered". By Linux (remember Microsoft's XOR patent and their "not is" patent? With that calibre of patents you can quickly amass a portfolio.)
Now I think we can all agree that the patents that Microsoft is waving are anything but good-faith results of hard work that they would like to protect. On the contrary ... they even refuse to disclose what patents are allegedly infringed in order to get a maximum "chilling effect". They clearly don't want revenue ... they just want to kill Linux. Not a "good faith" manouver, but who cares? It's "Legal", so they will be able to win in court and then use that to get a national crackdown on all Linux distributions that aren't under the umbrella of firms that they have patent license agreements with.
And quite regardless of what folk here on Slashdot seem to think ... it doesn't matter what those patents say and whether they can be upheld on appeal. Appeal of patents takes a looong time (years), and in the mean time there are all those nice shiny letters stating "patent awarded", and they happen to have value. Especially when it comes to demanding injunctions to stop the spread of Linux. Microsoft can now argue that it looses money and market-share to free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-speech Linux because Linux competes with their commercial offerings.
And it only takes one single patent (out of 235) to be found "infringed" by Linux to make whoever distributes, sells, or uses Linux liable for license fees. License fees which only corporate editions of Linux can pay, but free-as-in-beer distros cannot. Therefore their distribution has to be stopped by way of injunctive relief. And this is precisely what Microsoft wants ... Linux out of the "free as in speech" domain because of the patent infringements, and only corporate opponents which it can cut to shreds with time-honoured tactics. And no more "free as in beer" distributions for the same reason.
The long and the short of it seems to be that Linux is dead in all countries that allow US style software patents.
Too bad ... it has been nice knowing you Linux. We will miss you.
All those who wish to continue to work on and enjoy free-as-in-beer Linux: buy a one-way ticket to a European country of your choice (well ... perhaps better buy an open return in case the EU decides to adopt US-style software patents after all).
The OP and the article it refers to make it very clear that the delays are caused by infighting between private companies. Not EU bureaucracies. In fact ... the idea is to call on one of those creaking old inefficient EU bureaucracies to actually get things off the ground. Whether that's a good idea is something else.
;-). That's the real problem.
It's not a question of government versus private enterprise, but one of "too many independent parties"
Your post therefore seems to be largely barking up the wrong tree.
What might have been a much better idea is to give the complete project to one private company and allow it to farm out parts of the work to whomever it sees fit. To US companies as well as EU ones if they are more competitive.
That would result in a radical end to "infighting", a lot more focus, a lot more "bang for the buck", and would also avoid entrusting what is essentially a manufacturing process to a government agency. Look at Arianespace. It works, and it works well.
The problem is of course: which company? Give the whole thing to a French company, and the Germans will growl. Give it to a German company, and the French will mutiny. Give it to a British company, and both will shout
*sighs* There we go again ... someone triggered the "Governments are socialist evil" reflex, and yes ... up pops someone to say that "No government can tell a company ...".
... for those with short memories and a limited appreciation of what is going on here. So ... please take the time to read up on the whole case, and _then_ sund off.
... it merely describes the plug you need to let third-party software components interoperate with Microsoft Server and Microsoft Windows in a Microsoft Server environment.
I'm afraid that this sort of response is just what Microsofts engineered in the first place
(1) The whole case began when Microsoft violated the EU fair-competition laws by withholding essential protocol information required to make other software products interoperable with Windows special flavour of the SMB protocol. And no, this does not include source code
(2) It is Microsoft that has been "gaming the system" for about three years now, using all procedural options to dicker, cavill, and waste time all with the intention of letting so much time pass that new facts on the ground are created (read closing the window of opportunity for competitors to offer interoperable software) and thus to freeze competitors out of the market.
When finally forced, by threats and fines, to open up their protocol specification, they have taken action to ensure that:
(a) the information they give out is as tardy, deficient, obfuscated, and useless as they can possibly make it
(b) they can *price* the information they are obliged to make available in the first place, aimed squarely at excluding Open Source software.
Of course this was never the spirit of the EU fair-competition laws, but like any good commercial organisation, Microsoft is doing absolutely anything that will not actually get them fined or jailed to make certain that they can use all the loopholes contained in the _letter_ of the law to get away with non-compliance.
(3) It is Microsoft which has been using "pricing" as a means to ensure that Open Source Software _cannot_ be fully inter-operable with Microsoft Server (from the article: "Some individual technologies within the premium tier, such as Kerberos authentication, are actually free of charge; though others, such as Base Authentication Services (used to grant authentication to clients accessing Windows Server resources) are relatively expensive - as high as $17.50 per server seat. (The complete proposed rate table is available in this PDF document.)".
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft is hiding behind the letter of (patent and copyright) law as follows: They take an open, documented, protocol (say SMB, which was developed by IBM by the way), extend it with things that delve deeply into the internals of MS Windows, and then say that it is "proprietary technology", and refuse to reveal how to be inter-operable.
The commonsense conclusion is that there is no innovative content in the new protocol, just a crafty way of commingling so much of their truly proprietary code into it that it anyone making something inter-operable will (a) infringe on their patents or (b) need copyrighted information from Microsoft. I believe that the EU is fully justified in refusing to fall for this formalistic trick and to allow Microsoft to make an end-run around the fair-competition laws.
(5) Besides Microsoft seems to have _promised_ the EU not to charge based only on patentability:
"But the EU Commission said in March that Microsoft agreed to base Windows Server protocol pricing on innovation, not patentability, adding that some protocols are not innovative enough to warrant a premium charge. The Commission also said that those protocols which aren't patentable should not require a fee at all.
In acknowledging the work of its designated trustee, Dr. Neil Barrett, the EU said it examined 160 Microsoft claims to patented technologies, and conclu
As far as I can see, this simply means that Microsoft is having to compete on _price_ instead of features, usability, and quality. I am interpreting this as a tacit acknowledgement by Microsoft that the best desktop Linux distributions are now comparable with Windows XP in terms of looks, features, quality, and usability.
... China third-world ??? ... but you know what I mean) educational market to keep those users from getting used to Linux is probably a very smart move on part of Microsoft.
... dumping Vista for 3$ would really harm Vista's image and potentially put pressure on Microsoft's revenue stream in other markets.
... by dumping the previous WIndows version, Windows XP, Microsoft gets to compete for marketshare with Linux in a third-world market without tarnishing Vista's image, without loss of revenue, and without fuelling large-scale piracy. The price gives you only the license, and that in large volues, so the net cost to Microsoft is about 0$. In addition, the government is to be suckered into subsidising the hardware of the PC by about 50%, so that end-users will have a huge incentive to go with the offer.
Dumping Windows XP in the third-world (well
Why?
Windows still has the advantage in terms of third-party software and market share but Vista cannot compete for market-share with Linux in third-world countries at first-world prices, and it has become a bit too hard to make and sell illegal copies for comfort so that avenue is closed too. Market-share is important because that's all that keeps people choosing MS Windows instead of something else. In addition it keeps Linux from becoming so ubiquitous that it becomes really lucrative to develop commercial software for it.
Now
So
By the time the net disposable income in China has reached levels where people will pay first-world prices, there will be this huge reservoir of people who are beautifully conditioned to MS Windows and who will have invested too much time and effort in Windows-only software to easily switch to Linux.
Is there a downside for Microsoft? I don't see it.