The first problem with the libertarian argument is that free markets exploit only that which is profitable. Discovering that which is profitable is often a thing done by or for governments. If you look at the history of innovation over the past hundred years, almost all of it would have been impossible without the direct involvement of government. The computer was developed for the defense industry, as were rockets, jet propulsion, modern nuclear physics, refrigeration, microwaves, radio, the list goes on and on.
Lately the profit motive behind going to space has been more or less limited to tourism. A visit to the moon by NASA, especially an extended manned one with the intention of exploiting the moon's natural resources and discovering the problems of long-term hostile-environment extraplanetary colonization could provide the very sort of research that would create a profit motive for private industry to exploit the moon.
The second problem with the libertarian argument is that the companies developing these technologies already are private industry, they are merely funded by the government.
The third problem is the cost. If you compare government spending in any given year, 3bn is a drop in the bucket, but it's a drop in the bucket that could result in MEN WALKING ON THE FREAKIN' MOON. What part about MEN WALKING ON THE MOON did you miss?
Unfortunately that wouldn't work either. You have someone who has full control of your computer and the software in it. The only really good way to authenticate in a scenario this terribly insecure would be via something akin to an RSA SecureID, or perhaps--and I like this idea--a telephone PIN to authenticate. Instead of performing stereotypical password authentication, the user would receive a phone number and a unique number. He would call the bank and input his login information (account number, password, etc) and then the unique ID from the website. This would authenticate the cookie the website had issued him, and he would be able to navigate freely.
Note: he in this context is used for brevity, it could easily be a she.
Actually yeah, I did think of that, and it's still a stupid decision. You don't have to have an MBA from Harvard to know a stupid decision from a good one. Froogle is out there and will probably achieve market dominance in a couple of years. Pricegrabber already has market dominance in its sector, but in the long term it probably won't maintain it. Essentially this decision is centered around short-term gain, not long-term profitability. That's not a decision a company that is planning on staying around for awhile would make, unless they're planning on taking on Google, or being acquired by someone else.
Think of it this way. You've decided you're going to bet your house on a car race that's going to happen in two years. You have enough money to buy a really nice car that's almost as fast as your opponents car. Then again, your opponent is an expert mechanic and a great driver whereas you're just a great driver. It is likely that in the next two years, the car you bought will be aging and slower than it was when you bought it, and your opponents car is going to be much faster than it is now.
Oh yay! Another corporate monolith! Too bad they spent $485mm on something that is sure to be made obselete by google within two years. Yeah, that was a smart move.
...or someone watching via a BO/VNC type session. It would also be senselessly irritating to the users and if someone has already installed a keylogger, they've probably already installed the others too.
You can't prevent home computers from being insecure, or outright stop identity theft. The idea here is that the banks will be financially responsible if any part of the process of banking with them opens up a customer to identity theft and/or if the bank itself is fooled by the identity thieves. This seems to be perfectly reasonable to me. If you're banking online you should have every bit of confidence that the bank you're working with will not only keep the data secure on its end, but also while the data is transit to you. Ideally, they should also make it work in such a way that the data is not stored on the user's machine at all, preventing intrusion from ever being a real problem.
Admittedly they'll never get around keystroke loggers or other such malware, but this is a good first step. Prevent what the users are able to do with a system we know is fundamentally insecure. Require various forms of authentication for requests that involve actually transferring money, at least one of which should be offline. Do not reveal information the user should already know (Credit Card numbers in full, user's SSN [or whatever the Korean equivalent is]).
It's really not that hard, it just requires feature-happy developers to stop for a second and ask themselves "but what if someone other than the user were logged in..."
You obviously missed my point, I didn't ever say that the two concepts were mutually exclusive, but rather inversly proportional. If you have a system which is impossible to attack from the internet, it's not connected to it. If you have a password length of 24 characters and someone tries to crack it using a brute-force algorhithm, it's going to take a substantially longer time. If you want your files to be secure you shouldn't share them over the network, but it is nonetheless convienent to do so in many situations.
Yes, you can design software, systems, and even networks that are both secure and usable, hell, that's what I do for a living. It isn't, however, a "huge issue" that should be "deeply researched." It's something that EVERYONE KNOWS. A locked door is more inconvienent and less useful than an unlocked one, even if you have the key. What if you lose the key? What if you need to get in in a hurry?
This is the same problem of the security vs. usability paradigm. It's a simple concept that people like you are wasting too much time, effort, and emotion on. I'm not exactly sure how pointing out that the most secure system is the least accessible one makes me brain dead, because it's obvious. Instead of accusing people of not thinking first, maybe you should heed your own advice.
This isn't anything new really, the security vs. usability arguement has been a problem forever, and frankly, it's not something to be addressed. The more secure something is, the more you restrict its usage, and the more you restrict it the less useful it becomes. The most secure computer is one that is off, encased in concrete, and buried where no one will ever find it. This is equally true of physical security, as anyone whose ever had to wait at a metal detector will attest. Security isn't convenient, and it probably never will be.
This is the kind of GUI replacement that could make Linux a real competitor against Windows and Mac in the interface department. It looks lightweight, innovative, smooth, and most importantly, intuitive. I think parts of this idea have been present in a lot of earlier *nix GUIs such as CDE, gnome, and to some degree with KDE's kicker, but those ideas that are outdated and not terribly elegant have been stripped out.
I don't see why centralization would come up though, regardless of who owns the fiber, it's still in the same place. The routers are also still in the same place most likely, which basically means what's getting centralized are the servers, and we already know that. Imagine how many fewer webservers there would be if San Jose were to lose connectivity, or New York for that matter. It's also possible that with fewer providers we have fewer routers which means there are fewer places BGP is routing with. This decreases fault tolerance, of course, and to some degree performance. It's like how when you're in Iowa you see most of your traffic going through Kansas City, even if it's going to Chicago.
I guess that people just miss the point that nowhere in the linked story does AMD ever say they're going to stop producing PC chips, it says that they are seeking to diversify. This is a good thing. It certainly doesn't say that they aren't bailing on the market, but it's pretty obvious that they're not going to bail on the PC market so soon after developing the Athlon XP and the Hammer.
Then again, it's 5am, I could be reading a story about chickens taking over New Zealand and not about AMD market share.
Open source software is great, it's free and easily modified. Now that I've given the Open Source movement the usual hurrah, I'm also pretty sure that most real-world companies that use computers use Microsoft products. I'm also reasonably certain that this isn't going to change, due to both monetary and support issues. Even though Linux is free, it isn't free to pay someone to convert your Windows network to a Linux network.
This creates a problem in the public school system in that public education is supposed to teach individuals useful skills. Unfortunately, if kids are taught open source software, they are going to be at a significant disadvantage entering the job market than individuals who have been taught how to use Microsoft products. As nice as it would be to see these individuals converting companies over to Open Source solutions, it's not terribly likely.
So, in my opinion it would be reasonable to teach kids both, but if you're only going to use one type of software, use what The Real World (tm) [No affiliation with MTV] uses. Teaching software, languages, and other things that the average joe never uses in the Real World gives the public school system a bad reputation from the very people who attend it.
No need to apologize, just next time please feel free to post non-anonymously. I didn't claim to be grammatically perfect in my post, I merely pointed out that, perhaps the mailing list in question should be properly spelled on the main page. This is, of course, considering that it was linked to a story where the mailing list was spelled properly. Misspelling proper names always leads to confusion, chaos, and other things that lead us to the dark side.
Then again, I do feel a desire to quibble a bit.
1. Sorry I didn't conform to MLA styleguides. I'll try better to make stylistic choices that fit your particular asthetics next time.
2. Squibble sounds cooler, but fair enough.
3. Hi, judgement call. If you're employed by Security Focus, you can feel free to question me on the subject. It is true, however, that BugTraq is, and has always been, in support of full disclosure. I believe that it would follow that they are dedicated to it. I never outlined the focus of BugTraq, as that is obvious from the name of the list.
4. Cite your sources. I understand it, and while it certainly isn't the work of a wordsmith, it conveys the point to anyone who can read above a third grade level. (Unfortunately, this excludes me, I still read at a Kindergarten level).
5. I always do that, thanks for pointing it out. I blame the french. Actually, I blame whatever lazy bastard decided to make it is contract to it's thus causing confusion with the possessive.
6. Fair enough. I wanted the post to be entered in a reasonable period of time so I didn't bother to proofread before posting, and quite frankly, at 9am on 4 hours of sleep before my coffee, I'm not exactly in ship-shape.
BugTraq is a mailing list dedicated to full disclosure. Before I get modded down for being redundant, let me explain how/why this is relevant. In a list dedicated to full disclosure, it becomes up to the person who drafts the advisory to be responsible for it's content. Many companies believe that vendor notification before releases is standard procedure, and yet there are others (ISS) who seem to believe that having one non-vulnerable version (bind 9) means that they can release an advisory that affects other versions that currently have no patches (bind 8, 4).
On the other hand, there are "independents" such as GOBBLES and other security goons who believe that posting the advisory with full exploit code the second they discover it is a good idea. I'm not going to disagree with that, because without such wake-up calls, many people would never update their systems, remaining vulnerable for days/months/years. It's pretty ridiculous how many people do.
It's not really up to BugTraq to decide which is the better course of action, it's up to the analysts and the community. If the community chooses to ostracize a member for using such tactics, they can do so. I'm sure that a commercial security vendor would encounter exactly that for releasing an advisory with exploit code and no vendor notification.
Though, in all fairness, most people have known about this IE exploit for months, and I can be reasonably sure that among "most people" "Microsoft" is included. Microsoft doesn't exactly have the worlds best track record working with people to resolve security issues, or even releasing timely patches.
In short, BugTraq good, security good, black hats bad.
They are dependant on the marketing and business schemes and not the quality of their product. If the above isn't working then they better become concerned.
Actually, Microsoft does produce a quality product, despite what the Linux-obsessed masses seem to think. It does have it's shortcomings, not the least of which being the price tag, but when it comes down to it, what Microsoft should be keeping in mind is that they have the edge when it comes to support and useability. Linux and Apache may well perform 10% faster, but an existing company typically has to hire a Linux admin to do that. Instead they can just throw money at buying a Windows Server License, IIS, and make a couple support calls to Microsoft to get it all up and running properly. If it ever breaks and the admin can't figure out the ridiculously simple administration tools, he can call Microsoft and have them fix it.
Sun does essentially the same thing, but is substantially more expensive, has less application support, and generally also requires hiring expert technicians. Microsoft products just do what they're supposed to do, and do them reasonably well. This is why Microsoft has the edge, it's EASY. MacOS might be a challenger if they had Enterprise level server support and hardware that didn't cost an arm and a leg, and third party support.
Lets face it, Linux has a long time to beat out Microsoft in Workstation land, and for companies that want to be able to hire any random Joe for pennies and not have to document every step of their network, Microsoft is more or less the only choice.
Interface, support, cost. The overhead to pay MS for software and support is less than hiring Senior UNIX Admins, and that's basically what it all comes down to.
Well, much of it comes down to a simple dub-sub debate which would really be totally off topic. It seems to be the tendency of the companies that cartoon network either contracts or purchases their anime from to dumb down the translations ridiculously (not that Outlaw Star is particularly thought-provoking).
Secondly, I'm annoyed when I don't get to see the artists original intent, irregardless of how small a modification that might be. It doesn't hurt that naked anime girls are part of the original intent, admittedly, but it's amazing how a few subtle (and not so subtle) edits and translations can completely change the meaning of any given work of art.
Case in point: Sailor Moon. Not originally the kids show it is here.
Cartoon Network may be one of the only places where you can get your anime fix on cable, but their overediting and bad dub jobs are notorious among hardcore fans. I'd much rather watch Futurama than that terrible edited version of Outlaw Star they air, or god forbid, more photoshopped Tenchi.
Maybe they could add a Saturday Action block that was subtitled. Adults can read, right?
The article really doesn't provide enough information to make the assumption that Microsoft is making an unfair business decision on this point. It's entirely possible that Microsoft sold licenses based upon support contracts or a subscription-based service offered only to K-Mart, or possibly even custom code to drive the site. Without this knowledge it's difficult to make a valid assumption as to whether or not Microsoft is being unfair with this particular dispute.
This is probably the same reason Microsoft is objecting, with a business that large it's hard to keep track of all of your clients and what exactly they have from you. Would you allow a company to sell 10,000 licenses for software that you had given them on the basis that they were maintaining a multi-million dollar support contract with you? I don't think so, and though it would be up to the company to make sure the support contracts were upheld, this would only be the case if they were notified of this dependency and paperwork was filed, etc.
Microsoft may very well be in the right in saying "Hey, you should tell us what of our intellectual property you're selling before you sell it."
That's embedding C in perl, which everybody already does. I'm talking about how foolish it is to take a primarily C project and toss some perl into it. Just use some regexp libraries and stop being so lazy about your code.
While I can think of numerous times embedding perl in my C would have made life easier, I can't think of any real reason to actually do so, it seems like a real waste of time to me. If you want to complete a project in Perl, then just do it in Perl. If you want to use C for a project, just use C. It's bad enough when people start using buggy bloated libraries, but it's worse when they give their compiler an identity crisis.
It's much like the great masters of Funk, The Parliament once said: "I've been down to the south, saw some great Funk...The Doobie Brothers...but do you want white guys all up in your Funk?"
In the same way, "I've been down through the source, I saw some great code...Perl...but do you want scripts all up in your C?"
I remember there were games for the SegaCD platform which featured full-frontal, and that was back before the SNES. I'm pretty sure that this game isn't, by any means, the first of its kind.
Languages change over time. No one during that time period likes it, but its a simple fact. Ask your parents about the slang that they used that their parents hated, chances are that there are words that are now common usage. If you go even farther back, you'll find that "English" was barely recognizable.
For example, the line from Chaucer in Middle English, "The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne / Hath in the Ram his half cours yronne," while somewhat recognizable today, is still obviously not the same. Even further back, to the time of Beowulf (the story, not the cluster), and you get "HWÆT WE GARDE / na in geardagum eodcyninga". Believe it or not, this is still considered a form of English, albeit Old English.
The modification of a language over time is both normal and, unfortunately for us old-timers (I'm 30), traumatic. G3t 0v3r 17:-)
Linguistics concerns itself with spoken languages, not written. Written language should be as unambiguous as humanly possible, being as the information encoded with tone and body language cannot be accurately conveyed. Also, in such cases as "you're" being substituted as "ur" it's also the case that "your" is substituted as "ur." As we all know "you're" != "your." If you think it does, you should have failed English.
On EFnet, you'll find that certain channels have enforced grammar. In these places, if you "lol" use "u" or "r" or even make a mistake with they're, their, there, it will not only be pointed out, but corrective action will often be taken. I'm a big supporter of this, being as IRC and other "chat" mediums are written mediums for the most part, and it's quite difficult to understand this shorthand if your english isn't terribly good, or if you're a hacker whose used to taking everything literally because it processes faster.
Some people will make the arguement that linguistics states rather plainly that a native speaker cannot ever speak a language incorrectly, and this is true. Many of these people fail to understand that typing and writing is not speaking.
Slashdot Mirror
The first problem with the libertarian argument is that free markets exploit only that which is profitable. Discovering that which is profitable is often a thing done by or for governments. If you look at the history of innovation over the past hundred years, almost all of it would have been impossible without the direct involvement of government. The computer was developed for the defense industry, as were rockets, jet propulsion, modern nuclear physics, refrigeration, microwaves, radio, the list goes on and on.
Lately the profit motive behind going to space has been more or less limited to tourism. A visit to the moon by NASA, especially an extended manned one with the intention of exploiting the moon's natural resources and discovering the problems of long-term hostile-environment extraplanetary colonization could provide the very sort of research that would create a profit motive for private industry to exploit the moon.
The second problem with the libertarian argument is that the companies developing these technologies already are private industry, they are merely funded by the government.
The third problem is the cost. If you compare government spending in any given year, 3bn is a drop in the bucket, but it's a drop in the bucket that could result in MEN WALKING ON THE FREAKIN' MOON. What part about MEN WALKING ON THE MOON did you miss?
...and there was a time when people thought Netscape would rule forever.
Unfortunately that wouldn't work either. You have someone who has full control of your computer and the software in it. The only really good way to authenticate in a scenario this terribly insecure would be via something akin to an RSA SecureID, or perhaps--and I like this idea--a telephone PIN to authenticate. Instead of performing stereotypical password authentication, the user would receive a phone number and a unique number. He would call the bank and input his login information (account number, password, etc) and then the unique ID from the website. This would authenticate the cookie the website had issued him, and he would be able to navigate freely.
Note: he in this context is used for brevity, it could easily be a she.
Actually yeah, I did think of that, and it's still a stupid decision. You don't have to have an MBA from Harvard to know a stupid decision from a good one. Froogle is out there and will probably achieve market dominance in a couple of years. Pricegrabber already has market dominance in its sector, but in the long term it probably won't maintain it. Essentially this decision is centered around short-term gain, not long-term profitability. That's not a decision a company that is planning on staying around for awhile would make, unless they're planning on taking on Google, or being acquired by someone else.
Think of it this way. You've decided you're going to bet your house on a car race that's going to happen in two years. You have enough money to buy a really nice car that's almost as fast as your opponents car. Then again, your opponent is an expert mechanic and a great driver whereas you're just a great driver. It is likely that in the next two years, the car you bought will be aging and slower than it was when you bought it, and your opponents car is going to be much faster than it is now.
Oh yay! Another corporate monolith! Too bad they spent $485mm on something that is sure to be made obselete by google within two years. Yeah, that was a smart move.
...or someone watching via a BO/VNC type session. It would also be senselessly irritating to the users and if someone has already installed a keylogger, they've probably already installed the others too.
You can't prevent home computers from being insecure, or outright stop identity theft. The idea here is that the banks will be financially responsible if any part of the process of banking with them opens up a customer to identity theft and/or if the bank itself is fooled by the identity thieves. This seems to be perfectly reasonable to me. If you're banking online you should have every bit of confidence that the bank you're working with will not only keep the data secure on its end, but also while the data is transit to you. Ideally, they should also make it work in such a way that the data is not stored on the user's machine at all, preventing intrusion from ever being a real problem.
Admittedly they'll never get around keystroke loggers or other such malware, but this is a good first step. Prevent what the users are able to do with a system we know is fundamentally insecure. Require various forms of authentication for requests that involve actually transferring money, at least one of which should be offline. Do not reveal information the user should already know (Credit Card numbers in full, user's SSN [or whatever the Korean equivalent is]).
It's really not that hard, it just requires feature-happy developers to stop for a second and ask themselves "but what if someone other than the user were logged in..."
You obviously missed my point, I didn't ever say that the two concepts were mutually exclusive, but rather inversly proportional. If you have a system which is impossible to attack from the internet, it's not connected to it. If you have a password length of 24 characters and someone tries to crack it using a brute-force algorhithm, it's going to take a substantially longer time. If you want your files to be secure you shouldn't share them over the network, but it is nonetheless convienent to do so in many situations.
Yes, you can design software, systems, and even networks that are both secure and usable, hell, that's what I do for a living. It isn't, however, a "huge issue" that should be "deeply researched." It's something that EVERYONE KNOWS. A locked door is more inconvienent and less useful than an unlocked one, even if you have the key. What if you lose the key? What if you need to get in in a hurry?
This is the same problem of the security vs. usability paradigm. It's a simple concept that people like you are wasting too much time, effort, and emotion on. I'm not exactly sure how pointing out that the most secure system is the least accessible one makes me brain dead, because it's obvious. Instead of accusing people of not thinking first, maybe you should heed your own advice.
This isn't anything new really, the security vs. usability arguement has been a problem forever, and frankly, it's not something to be addressed. The more secure something is, the more you restrict its usage, and the more you restrict it the less useful it becomes. The most secure computer is one that is off, encased in concrete, and buried where no one will ever find it. This is equally true of physical security, as anyone whose ever had to wait at a metal detector will attest. Security isn't convenient, and it probably never will be.
This is the kind of GUI replacement that could make Linux a real competitor against Windows and Mac in the interface department. It looks lightweight, innovative, smooth, and most importantly, intuitive. I think parts of this idea have been present in a lot of earlier *nix GUIs such as CDE, gnome, and to some degree with KDE's kicker, but those ideas that are outdated and not terribly elegant have been stripped out.
Good job.
I don't see why centralization would come up though, regardless of who owns the fiber, it's still in the same place. The routers are also still in the same place most likely, which basically means what's getting centralized are the servers, and we already know that. Imagine how many fewer webservers there would be if San Jose were to lose connectivity, or New York for that matter. It's also possible that with fewer providers we have fewer routers which means there are fewer places BGP is routing with. This decreases fault tolerance, of course, and to some degree performance. It's like how when you're in Iowa you see most of your traffic going through Kansas City, even if it's going to Chicago.
*shrug*
I guess that people just miss the point that nowhere in the linked story does AMD ever say they're going to stop producing PC chips, it says that they are seeking to diversify. This is a good thing. It certainly doesn't say that they aren't bailing on the market, but it's pretty obvious that they're not going to bail on the PC market so soon after developing the Athlon XP and the Hammer.
Then again, it's 5am, I could be reading a story about chickens taking over New Zealand and not about AMD market share.
Open source software is great, it's free and easily modified. Now that I've given the Open Source movement the usual hurrah, I'm also pretty sure that most real-world companies that use computers use Microsoft products. I'm also reasonably certain that this isn't going to change, due to both monetary and support issues. Even though Linux is free, it isn't free to pay someone to convert your Windows network to a Linux network.
This creates a problem in the public school system in that public education is supposed to teach individuals useful skills. Unfortunately, if kids are taught open source software, they are going to be at a significant disadvantage entering the job market than individuals who have been taught how to use Microsoft products. As nice as it would be to see these individuals converting companies over to Open Source solutions, it's not terribly likely.
So, in my opinion it would be reasonable to teach kids both, but if you're only going to use one type of software, use what The Real World (tm) [No affiliation with MTV] uses. Teaching software, languages, and other things that the average joe never uses in the Real World gives the public school system a bad reputation from the very people who attend it.
No need to apologize, just next time please feel free to post non-anonymously. I didn't claim to be grammatically perfect in my post, I merely pointed out that, perhaps the mailing list in question should be properly spelled on the main page. This is, of course, considering that it was linked to a story where the mailing list was spelled properly. Misspelling proper names always leads to confusion, chaos, and other things that lead us to the dark side.
:P.
Then again, I do feel a desire to quibble a bit.
1. Sorry I didn't conform to MLA styleguides. I'll try better to make stylistic choices that fit your particular asthetics next time.
2. Squibble sounds cooler, but fair enough.
3. Hi, judgement call. If you're employed by Security Focus, you can feel free to question me on the subject. It is true, however, that BugTraq is, and has always been, in support of full disclosure. I believe that it would follow that they are dedicated to it. I never outlined the focus of BugTraq, as that is obvious from the name of the list.
4. Cite your sources. I understand it, and while it certainly isn't the work of a wordsmith, it conveys the point to anyone who can read above a third grade level. (Unfortunately, this excludes me, I still read at a Kindergarten level).
5. I always do that, thanks for pointing it out. I blame the french. Actually, I blame whatever lazy bastard decided to make it is contract to it's thus causing confusion with the possessive.
6. Fair enough. I wanted the post to be entered in a reasonable period of time so I didn't bother to proofread before posting, and quite frankly, at 9am on 4 hours of sleep before my coffee, I'm not exactly in ship-shape.
In short,
BugTraq is a mailing list dedicated to full disclosure. Before I get modded down for being redundant, let me explain how/why this is relevant. In a list dedicated to full disclosure, it becomes up to the person who drafts the advisory to be responsible for it's content. Many companies believe that vendor notification before releases is standard procedure, and yet there are others (ISS) who seem to believe that having one non-vulnerable version (bind 9) means that they can release an advisory that affects other versions that currently have no patches (bind 8, 4).
On the other hand, there are "independents" such as GOBBLES and other security goons who believe that posting the advisory with full exploit code the second they discover it is a good idea. I'm not going to disagree with that, because without such wake-up calls, many people would never update their systems, remaining vulnerable for days/months/years. It's pretty ridiculous how many people do.
It's not really up to BugTraq to decide which is the better course of action, it's up to the analysts and the community. If the community chooses to ostracize a member for using such tactics, they can do so. I'm sure that a commercial security vendor would encounter exactly that for releasing an advisory with exploit code and no vendor notification.
Though, in all fairness, most people have known about this IE exploit for months, and I can be reasonably sure that among "most people" "Microsoft" is included. Microsoft doesn't exactly have the worlds best track record working with people to resolve security issues, or even releasing timely patches.
In short, BugTraq good, security good, black hats bad.
They are dependant on the marketing and business schemes and not the quality of their product. If the above isn't working then they better become concerned.
Actually, Microsoft does produce a quality product, despite what the Linux-obsessed masses seem to think. It does have it's shortcomings, not the least of which being the price tag, but when it comes down to it, what Microsoft should be keeping in mind is that they have the edge when it comes to support and useability. Linux and Apache may well perform 10% faster, but an existing company typically has to hire a Linux admin to do that. Instead they can just throw money at buying a Windows Server License, IIS, and make a couple support calls to Microsoft to get it all up and running properly. If it ever breaks and the admin can't figure out the ridiculously simple administration tools, he can call Microsoft and have them fix it.
Sun does essentially the same thing, but is substantially more expensive, has less application support, and generally also requires hiring expert technicians. Microsoft products just do what they're supposed to do, and do them reasonably well. This is why Microsoft has the edge, it's EASY. MacOS might be a challenger if they had Enterprise level server support and hardware that didn't cost an arm and a leg, and third party support.
Lets face it, Linux has a long time to beat out Microsoft in Workstation land, and for companies that want to be able to hire any random Joe for pennies and not have to document every step of their network, Microsoft is more or less the only choice.
Interface, support, cost. The overhead to pay MS for software and support is less than hiring Senior UNIX Admins, and that's basically what it all comes down to.
Well, much of it comes down to a simple dub-sub debate which would really be totally off topic. It seems to be the tendency of the companies that cartoon network either contracts or purchases their anime from to dumb down the translations ridiculously (not that Outlaw Star is particularly thought-provoking).
Secondly, I'm annoyed when I don't get to see the artists original intent, irregardless of how small a modification that might be. It doesn't hurt that naked anime girls are part of the original intent, admittedly, but it's amazing how a few subtle (and not so subtle) edits and translations can completely change the meaning of any given work of art.
Case in point: Sailor Moon. Not originally the kids show it is here.
Cartoon Network may be one of the only places where you can get your anime fix on cable, but their overediting and bad dub jobs are notorious among hardcore fans. I'd much rather watch Futurama than that terrible edited version of Outlaw Star they air, or god forbid, more photoshopped Tenchi.
Maybe they could add a Saturday Action block that was subtitled. Adults can read, right?
The article really doesn't provide enough information to make the assumption that Microsoft is making an unfair business decision on this point. It's entirely possible that Microsoft sold licenses based upon support contracts or a subscription-based service offered only to K-Mart, or possibly even custom code to drive the site. Without this knowledge it's difficult to make a valid assumption as to whether or not Microsoft is being unfair with this particular dispute.
This is probably the same reason Microsoft is objecting, with a business that large it's hard to keep track of all of your clients and what exactly they have from you. Would you allow a company to sell 10,000 licenses for software that you had given them on the basis that they were maintaining a multi-million dollar support contract with you? I don't think so, and though it would be up to the company to make sure the support contracts were upheld, this would only be the case if they were notified of this dependency and paperwork was filed, etc.
Microsoft may very well be in the right in saying "Hey, you should tell us what of our intellectual property you're selling before you sell it."
That's embedding C in perl, which everybody already does. I'm talking about how foolish it is to take a primarily C project and toss some perl into it. Just use some regexp libraries and stop being so lazy about your code.
While I can think of numerous times embedding perl in my C would have made life easier, I can't think of any real reason to actually do so, it seems like a real waste of time to me. If you want to complete a project in Perl, then just do it in Perl. If you want to use C for a project, just use C. It's bad enough when people start using buggy bloated libraries, but it's worse when they give their compiler an identity crisis.
It's much like the great masters of Funk, The Parliament once said: "I've been down to the south, saw some great Funk...The Doobie Brothers...but do you want white guys all up in your Funk?"
In the same way, "I've been down through the source, I saw some great code...Perl...but do you want scripts all up in your C?"
I remember there were games for the SegaCD platform which featured full-frontal, and that was back before the SNES. I'm pretty sure that this game isn't, by any means, the first of its kind.
Speaking a language correctly and thinking correctly are entirely different :)
Linguistics concerns itself with spoken languages, not written. Written language should be as unambiguous as humanly possible, being as the information encoded with tone and body language cannot be accurately conveyed. Also, in such cases as "you're" being substituted as "ur" it's also the case that "your" is substituted as "ur." As we all know "you're" != "your." If you think it does, you should have failed English.
On EFnet, you'll find that certain channels have enforced grammar. In these places, if you "lol" use "u" or "r" or even make a mistake with they're, their, there, it will not only be pointed out, but corrective action will often be taken. I'm a big supporter of this, being as IRC and other "chat" mediums are written mediums for the most part, and it's quite difficult to understand this shorthand if your english isn't terribly good, or if you're a hacker whose used to taking everything literally because it processes faster.
Some people will make the arguement that linguistics states rather plainly that a native speaker cannot ever speak a language incorrectly, and this is true. Many of these people fail to understand that typing and writing is not speaking.