Not really as Oracle do not have a monopoly when it comes to databases. If anything its probably good business practice for Oracle, since it reduces the amount of potential system configuration's that they have to deal with.
That's my view too, as well as the fact that Microsoft depend heavily on the appearance of legacy support, something that corporate customers certainly like, - (just think of all that probably not wonderfully written in house code that is flying about).
I'm not a MS fan, or really anti-MS - (read my other posts) but Microsoft are stuck here, they cant simply adopt a radical new operating system (even with virtualisation) and throw out all legacy support. They have gone as far as they can with Vista (which really isn't a re-write, its a mash up and an attempt to address some of their major problems). With legacy support they will continue to have the same security problems that have plagued them since the inception of windows.
The reasoning is simple, if Microsoft adopted a *nix like kernel and re-wrote everything then they would have an OS with little or no software support, little or no Hardware support, and they would find themselves competing directly with Linux / Solaris / BSD etc...without the benefit of already having a huge installed user base with a clear upgrade path. There would be one additional exception, their offering would not be free (unless they would simultaneously go down the software as a service route and make their OS free.. which throws up even more issues see My other post)
.Microsoft wont change their core OS not because they cant, but because if they do they are committing suicide. Even with coercion of hardware and software vendors, there will be a point when the Hardware and software vendors will simply have to decide whether it is cheaper for them to try and port / support the new Microsoft OS (which would be completely new, untested and unproven) or put the effort of supporting Microsoft's new offering into supporting a *nix, which already has all the features of this new Microsoft OS, and much longer pedigree and larger user base (assuming the initial Microsoft user base as 0 after all).
How is the free software/open source community dealing with the changing landscape?
Sorry I'm only going to respond to this small part of your post:) . The open source community has the advantage that at present everything is much much more modular than in the world of windows. there is no requirement for any of the disto's to maintain the entire code base that their distro relies upon. Further more the producers and providers Open Source code are generally not looking at their product in terms of monetary value. Debian don't have to include features to entice SUSE or Red Hat users over to their distro, nor do they have to worry about Ubuntu using their code base and passing it off as something else entirely.
In my opinion the open source landscape is so different from that which Microsoft inhabits that the issues facing Microsoft will simply not figure on the OSS radar. There will certainly be other issues to contend with (such as driver support, copyright and patents) but most of these are also issues for Microsoft. So in short, how is the FOSS community dealing with the changing landscape? well it deals with it in an asymetric way, it is made up of a huge number of small cells, each one more able to adapt to change than the monolith that is Microsoft. (Just realised that that makes the FOSS community sound like an insurgent / Terrorist group, but that may infact be more accurate than I would have thought.)
If we start seeing companies go down the software as a service model, we may well see vista as a cut down but free product, with Microsoft's revenue coming from on-line productivity services. Games will be relegated to the console (where they can also be locked to the hardware or only available on-line).
This would be good for the companies that are currently seeing losses due to copyright infringement, just imagine if all your media was only available on-line - you could only rent it, it would be playable on your PC but only if the platform had sufficient technical measures in place to prevent you from copying it. You couldn't copy Office or Photoshop because its run directly from someone else's server. This would be a dream for software providers as they could charge you on a per use basis, and lock your data into their services. No more trying to sell upgrades as you wouldn't have a choice.
The only thing that stands in the way of that is a decent and mostly feature complete open code base, something that would allow you to do what you want with your computer, your "Intellectual Property" and the media you buy, or already own. We are seeing the end of the huge revenue streams for those people who provide a product that is easily reproduced. Those providers are looking for ways to re-generate those revenue streams, and I dont think the scenario I have outlined above is too outlandish for them to consider.
So the future is the web, we will in the future all pay a monthly fee and access our documents and media on-line (where consequently it easier to control what we have access to). Then 10-20 years down the line the on-line model will be seen as legacy and we will all jump out and buy a new fangled computer that lets you keep your content locally again, without paying an access fee, all by just buying a software license of an OS and some applications...
Or we could just not bother going with the latest fad designed to keep us spending, and preventing us from actually owning anything. As long as the good folks at Debian continue to produce a great distribution, and as long as people are willing to write software, I think I'll stick to what I know (and what I don't have to pay through the nose for.)
Yeah, I've been corrected on that score, seems that I've been reading too much on the political side (the US position and why it apparently couldn't / didn't want to help the US) so as to miss the fact that the US apparently supplied missiles and intelligence too. I stand corrected.
First off, the supply of missiles to the UK from the US is something that I wasn't aware of, mainly as it doesn't seem to be something that is common knowledge. Given that most of the history I have seen of that conflict and the various commentaries of US involvement seem to stop at the point were there is a discussion of America's ability to assist (due to treaty obligations and the Monroe doctrine), I would suggest that I made a mistake, and will happily agree that the US did, support the UK in the Falklands.
Your treatment of the Suez Crisis is facile. While you pan the United States, I don't see that the Commonwealth was particularly warm to the UK action in the Suez Crisis either.
As for that, the point of my post was to indicate that the UK should not rely on the US for military support as when the UK wishes to act in a manner which is not in the US interest, (just as the US may wish to act in a manner that is not in the UK interest) she should still be in a position to do so.
Who does the US share nuclear weapons secrets with?
As you have so eloquently pointed out above, the US shares nuclear secrets with the UK, if the US is willing to do that then why would they stop at providing the source code for aircraft?
My point is simple, The UK should not be reliant on another power, who may or may not support the UK in future, this source code issue is a major one, as it implies a lack of trust.
The US is doing what it can to help the UK in one of the key battles of it's existence: the battle for Londonistan. Maybe it's just a selfish act to avoid ending up as America Alone.
The UK has fought terrorism in various guises for a long time, I dont think that any terrorist group is going to threaten the existence of the UK, although our politicians seem to be intent on destroying our way of life to help fight that same threat. Moreover I doubt that the terrorist threat to the UK (and indeed to the US) would be as great as it is apparently at the moment, if the US and UK had not invaded Iraq. An invasion that was supported by the UK, but not in my opinion, in her national interest (any more than say invading Sudan, Uzbekistan, Somalia, or anywhere else where there is a dictator, or cruelty by the state against the population),.The invasion of Afghanistan was sensible and needed, but I would question the benefits and rationality of invading Iraq.
As for the Londonistan reference, it generally worries me when people start believing media hype and inciting fear where it is not required. The UK is a multi-cultural society, and frankly it works quite well, not without exception given recent events, but considerably better than the view given by both our media and that of the US. There seems to be rather too much of the Muslim == Terrorist mindset (and worse the non-Muslim/foreign looking != Terrorist), and the press are happy to replay it at every opportunity, all that achieves is false fears, and alienation.
Anyway, I digress, I have a question for you, would the US buy British Harriers if the UK refused the US access to the avionics and weapons system software?
It appears you mistook my post as an attack on the US, - it wasn't, it was an argument against over reliance on the US, and the blind acceptance of US foreign policy, both of which are something the UK already does far to much of.
It's fascinating that you, and Mr. Blair, make a big deal of this - without mentioning that the UK's strategic deterrent is already in the hands of another country. The U.K. is utterly dependent on the U.S. for software and spares for the Trident-II submarines.
Because of course - making the same mistake twice is a good idea.....
Its funny - no-one in reply to my comment seems to have read my post fully. Let me be clear, I am saying is:
1) The US and UK haven't always been fully supportive of each other (i.e. Falklands, Suez). 2) I wouldn't expect the US and UK to be fully supportive of each other at all times. 3) The US can do what it wants with its secrets and technology - its theirs. 4) The UK shouldn't buy or use technology it may have to rely on if it is not in control of that technology (in this case the software being closed to the UK) 5) The UK's current (perceived) position of supporting the US at all costs is wrong and goes against the UK national interest, and is alienating the UK from some of her other traditional allies.
Its interesting, I have read that the US actively tried to dissuade the UK from its plans for an invasion as there was a belief that it would cause problems for the (US supported) military dictatorship that was running Argentina at the time, the US hoped that there could be an alternative solution, one that could be acceptable to both the UK and Argentina, - with both giving ground. Remember that they US officially remains neutral as to the sovereignty of the Falkland islands.
That is hardly giving "loads of support", but it was appreciated. My point is that the US felt it could not outright support the UK, as it had interests in the region, and those interests were at least of equal importance as the UK.
The situation with the Suez crisis is probably better as an indicator of UK and US interests clashing, but the fact remains, the UK cannot trust the US, if the UK's actions are not in the US's interests.
As such, the UK should not be reliant upon the US for any defensive or offensive military capability especially if the US does not trust the UK sufficiently to give the UK access to the software that has any bearing on that capability that
There was quite a bit of US support during the Falklands war. Go ask Lady Thatcher. There wasn't boots on the ground though. You can't honestly tell me that losing the Falklands, a few rocks with a few sheep, was a genuine threat to the UK. It was a threat to the UK's pride though.
Not true - Some members of the US Government saw it as in the US's Interest to side with the UK, and some wanted to remain neutral, others believed that they needed to back Argentina to prevent further communist expansion in South America. So in this instance the US did not, openly support the UK, nor push the UK's case in diplomatic efforts. As for being a threat to the UK, I assume that in your opinion it is OK for a country, run by a military dictatorship, (at that time) supported by the US, and an aggressor to invade another countries territory? Under the circumstances I don't see what options other than retaking the Falklands, the UK had.
Perhaps the US saw the seizing of the Suez canal by UK and France as against its interests?
Indeed, that is correct they did see it as counter to US interests, however the point I am making is that we should not blindly assume that the US will support the UK, so lets assume that a similar situation arose and the UK was reliant on the US to keep its military aircraft working, but the US decides that the UK cannot have the modifications / updates or whatever the UK requires - that is in the US interest, but counter to the UK one. In essence, you are making my point here.
Think that one over. Which countries do you trust more than the US? France? Germany? Spain?
I don't think that the who do you trust "more" argument is valid, I (or rather the UK) shouldn't *need* to trust anyone, but since you are asking; I would trust Germany and Belgium more than the US. Frankly France has interests closer to those of the UK than the US, so again considering that, I would trust France more than the US. (although France like the US will only do what she perceives is in her own interest, so that "trust" would require regular review, just as it should with the US). If nothing else at least these states have a global outlook that is more aligned with the UK, even if it diverges occasionally. I think that it is clear that the UK need to follow most of the rest of the world, and get back to being self reliant, and formulating its own foreign policy, not taking orders and instructions from, or relying on a foreign power.
Sadly without this agreement the UK really should simply say no to any involvement, however I would suggest that the UK will still splash out anyway. The entire US/UK Special relationship is pretty much a myth anyway and more to the point it has been regarding foreign policy matters for a long time, placing even more dependence on the US in areas of defence is a bad idea.
There seems to be (in the UK at least) a memory lapse within political circles, that the US has in the past simply not stood with the UK.
The Lack of US support during the Falklands war, and outright opposition to the Suez crisis, should show that the UK cannot rely on US military power to support the UK's own operations and aims, and nor should it. The US will always look after itself, it will only take action when it feels its own perceived interests are involved or if there is sufficient domestic political pressure to do so, and the UK really should follow suit. Frankly that is a sensible position for any nation state to take. The UK governments current position of "follow the US's lead wherever it is demanded" is downright treasonous.
The UK needs to continue to maintain forces, equipment and any other capabilities independently or with allies as long as the UK is capable of maintaining the same, in the absence of their allies. It would be foolhardy to rely on the US (or France/Germany/Italy etc..) for equipment, parts, support, or armaments in the case of war, especially if any of those allies were opposed to the conflict.
The one thing I do feel that is surprising with this scenario is that the US will happily sell the aircraft to the UK. I would have assumed that any sensitive information about the aircraft would be available from the aircraft itself, which of course presents the question as to whether there are either surprises in the software that would give the US any advantage in the unlikely event that these aircraft were used against them. Although ignoring that (slight conspiracy theory) surely it should also raise questions about the quality of the software.
Anyway, I see no reason why the UK cannot simply continue to work on its own or with allies who full trust the UK, rather than be treated as an interloper or a poor cousin by the US.
I know its not technical and nor does it have a wow factor or allow you to log into a web based control and monitoring page in the "interweb", but how about asking a friend / neighbour to keep an eye on it for you? That way if something goes wrong they may be able to help you sort out any problems without you coming back, plus they are more flexible, able to deal with the weather, any break-ins, any mail that doesn't get misdirected or anything else for that matter.
Obviously the issue here, and it a big one, is Trust.
Its strange I have an ancient Dell latitude cpx (500Mhz PIII with 384Mb RAM and a fairly modern 2.5 80Gb HDD) - All I use it for is on the road stuff like keeping up with email, a bit of net access, reading and editing odf's the odd presentation and a few other minor things and it works a charm. Its running Debian with KDE slimmed down somewhat, but performs perfectly adequately, to be fair I use konqueror for web access, - although firefox seems perfectly fine to, so I'm not sure what your problem is...
The only problem I have is watching movies on it, (Handy when travelling) basically the audio goes out of sync with the video if I try and watch anything not specially cut down for it, although mencoder deals with that. Moreover I have three batteries for it (its of a modular design so I can stick two in at once... with one spare) so it is good for even the longest journey, - about 2hrs per battery between charges. Oh and unlike my other laptops - it doesn't seem to break when dropped.... (50.50 chance that will change next time I drop it...)
Whilst we are semi on the subject of Linux on different devices, so far I have only seen the benefits of it and when people put some effort in this generally provides fantastic performance and capabilities - I have an IPAQ H2215 with Familiar Linux and Opie on - and performs massively better under Linux than under windows, - i.e. playing mp3's is now seamless, I can if I wish watch a movie on it.. (320x240,, but hey its OK for a short while). No more problems with large e-books, pdf's, rtf's etc.. a stack of games, a great PIM, bluetooth, web browsing via my phone and a selection of web browsers. Its even possible to stick a web server on (and a seemingly for static content.. an extremely fast one at that) also and most important for me I can sync all the data with my desktop extremely easily, and back up the CF card (with the OS n) completely.
Erbium-doping not withstanding - (I have no real experience with fibre over more than a few thousand meters, and haven't seen the need yet for looking at amplification...), I know that we used to see some signal degradation over distances of 1-2km, with fairly high grade fibre, and even had issues with usability at 800m with some of the lower quality stuff - interestingly this seemed to be more pronounced when using network hardware - in this case HP kit, whilst Telecom related equipment seemed more robust.
I would assume that there are technical costs associated with increased range and I would guess that those costs would manifest themselves as an impact on any data transmission rate - whether through increased noise / error correction requirements.
Ah - But how do you know that there was no advertising in ancient Greek and Egyptian societies? You know; papyrus scrolls pasted on the side of pyramids with enticing messages such as;
"Sphinx for your sphinx, sugar for my honey - best deals on mummification", "Plato - Republic, available in read once and burn, and read thrice and burn (Papyrus Restriction Mechanisms (PRM))" or little notes passed under your door explaining that you need to buy "Dioclese said to Athena that there should be a.... 5UP ER L0W PR 1CE5 ON V1RG1N!!!!! 0L1VE 0!L,.. and there was a citizen in Pompei who decided to sell his carts... on the high sea there were many storms"
This may prove conclusively that advertising is the cause of all depression.
Once the connectivity is there, hardware will become available and gradually more accessible as it is taken up, same goes the other way - if someone suddenly comes up with a bus and card capable of even higher speeds, it will slowly become available and more accessible until connectivity catches up and everyone wants it. Its all about getting to the point were a (potential) mass market appears and it makes the R&D viable. In the short term you will obviously see niche markets for it anyway - and they will pay buckets of cash for this kind of tech because they see a benefit from it.
*ISPs need to be more proactive at disconnecting people who can't keep their computer clean.*
I agree in principal - but disagree in practice, - I have had a number of calls and even been disconnected by various ISP's due to behaviour that they assumed was viral - simply because their methods of detection were too simplistic - perfect for most people but a pain for many others - the solution in my case was to go for an ISP that was rather more expensive than the norm...
Oh and the reasons for the calls and disconnections -
Your computer has a virus because it is sending and receiving email directly - via ports 25 + 993, - apparently (according to their documentation) I either had a virus or my mail client was incorrectly configured - I should change the SMTP server to smtp.foo.com and my "pop3" server (never mind that 993 is clearly related to IMAP) to pop.foo.smtp. - My return calls to the ISP required escalation to their 3rd level before they understood that I didn't want to use their mail servers.... (I was even told that their servers were incompatible with my servers, and that there was no such thing as an IMAP server...."its POP3 for Post Office Server...")). So real reason for the disconnect was me using a mail client with my own servers - this was before I used a local mail server - more on that later....
Same ISP; I used port 23456 for testing an app I was writing (still am writing - its intended to manage a number of Debian machines apt configs and updates etc creating groups of them etc...) - I was told that I had been detected as a Hacker by technical support. I changed ports - and then left that ISP about am month later.
New ISP was taken over by another ISP after about 8 months of my contract with them. At about this time I had started to use my own mail server and about 2 weeks after that all mail associated ports (for some reason except 587) would return errors - ( Here is a copy of the message received whenever you try to connect to port 25 manually - the same for others...)
server-001:/home/*********# telnet smtp.foo.com 25 Trying 216.234.246.150... Connected to smtp.foo.com. Escape character is '^]'. 554 Please check your SMTP server is set to smtp.********.com. Further help is available at http://help.*******.com/sessionBegin.do?solutionId =kb***** Connection closed by foreign host.
(*'s to protect the innocent - which they are sort of..)
Again major discussions with tech support - first off with them claiming that no ports were blocked or redirected (I recorded that call and played it back to every level of support I got passed to...) Anyway I was finally told that yes they only allowed mail through their servers (but why was I not using either their mail servers or a web mail service? - they even offered to help me set up a hotmail address....). This was apparently due to the sending of spam and due to issues with virus infections so I guess its a fair point. So rather than putting up much of a fight (as in contract terms and TOS etc.. I offered to leave if they terminated the contract without penalty (which they did and let me keep the router that I had never used, a set of cordless dect phones (Which was nice) and a 4 month old sony k800i. Not bad - and no grumbles.
I now have a business account with a major provider - and all is well.
I guess what I am saying is that its all well and good detecting things which could be malicious - but you will miss a lot (there is only so much you can do) and you will block a lot of legitimate users - or identify them incorrectly as viral.
Last point it turns out that the ISP that forces you to use their mail servers will relay any mail from within its network regardless of pretty much anything (including the lack of from addresses or the inclusion of hundreds of recipients) so the blocking of mail there is really part of their solution (presumably they monitor what goes through their mail servers too...) which may have an impact on privacy as well as on the flexibility of service.
Anyway. As I said - I agree with you but I am not sure how the ISP's are supposed to do it. Clearly mandatory virus scans are out of the question.
Fisrt off TCO is valid - if you know what the TCO for a sytem is / will be you can budget correctly - and plan for upgrades etc.. - in short you have some sort of financial stability. Microsoft just skew figures regarding their software, - much like every other software or services provider...
Secondly the problem with *some* companies is that they dont plan long term - so if a system appears cheaper in the first year, that is what they will use, - two reasons for this 1) It looks good in the short term and the board will be happy, plus the person responsible may have moved or beed promoted / sacked before the benefits of their decision are realised (so someone else wil get the credit for it - or even worse they will appear to have made a poor decision - that cost too much money...). 2) Tehy have seen many many products that claim; "...the cost to change is high but then it drops and you will be laughing all the way to the bank..." but then it turns out that the initial costs are high and that the TCO is also just as high or not very different from the origional system.
Of course there are also those who believe that having the "latest" and "best" is required - and strangley IT managers / IT directors seem to see Microsoft as "Best". (Just after bespoke software (something like the difference between buying a tower block to put your head office in and having one built to spec...). For these guys pointing out that the *nix systems are as close to bespoke as they are going to get (in reality most "bespoke" systems are based on something COTS like anyway) sometimes helps"!)
Anyway - not disagreeing with you much either, but hey - thought I'd say.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really as Oracle do not have a monopoly when it comes to databases. If anything its probably good business practice for Oracle, since it reduces the amount of potential system configuration's that they have to deal with.
That's my view too, as well as the fact that Microsoft depend heavily on the appearance of legacy support, something that corporate customers certainly like, - (just think of all that probably not wonderfully written in house code that is flying about).
I'm not a MS fan, or really anti-MS - (read my other posts) but Microsoft are stuck here, they cant simply adopt a radical new operating system (even with virtualisation) and throw out all legacy support. They have gone as far as they can with Vista (which really isn't a re-write, its a mash up and an attempt to address some of their major problems). With legacy support they will continue to have the same security problems that have plagued them since the inception of windows.
The reasoning is simple, if Microsoft adopted a *nix like kernel and re-wrote everything then they would have an OS with little or no software support, little or no Hardware support, and they would find themselves competing directly with Linux / Solaris / BSD etc...without the benefit of already having a huge installed user base with a clear upgrade path. There would be one additional exception, their offering would not be free (unless they would simultaneously go down the software as a service route and make their OS free.. which throws up even more issues see My other post)
.Microsoft wont change their core OS not because they cant, but because if they do they are committing suicide. Even with coercion of hardware and software vendors, there will be a point when the Hardware and software vendors will simply have to decide whether it is cheaper for them to try and port / support the new Microsoft OS (which would be completely new, untested and unproven) or put the effort of supporting Microsoft's new offering into supporting a *nix, which already has all the features of this new Microsoft OS, and much longer pedigree and larger user base (assuming the initial Microsoft user base as 0 after all).Your broadband works without power? I want some. :)
But then where does the head of IT get his free lunches and nights out from?
How is the free software/open source community dealing with the changing landscape?
Sorry I'm only going to respond to this small part of your post :) . The open source community has the advantage that at present everything is much much more modular than in the world of windows. there is no requirement for any of the disto's to maintain the entire code base that their distro relies upon. Further more the producers and providers Open Source code are generally not looking at their product in terms of monetary value. Debian don't have to include features to entice SUSE or Red Hat users over to their distro, nor do they have to worry about Ubuntu using their code base and passing it off as something else entirely.
In my opinion the open source landscape is so different from that which Microsoft inhabits that the issues facing Microsoft will simply not figure on the OSS radar. There will certainly be other issues to contend with (such as driver support, copyright and patents) but most of these are also issues for Microsoft. So in short, how is the FOSS community dealing with the changing landscape? well it deals with it in an asymetric way, it is made up of a huge number of small cells, each one more able to adapt to change than the monolith that is Microsoft. (Just realised that that makes the FOSS community sound like an insurgent / Terrorist group, but that may infact be more accurate than I would have thought.)
If we start seeing companies go down the software as a service model, we may well see vista as a cut down but free product, with Microsoft's revenue coming from on-line productivity services. Games will be relegated to the console (where they can also be locked to the hardware or only available on-line).
This would be good for the companies that are currently seeing losses due to copyright infringement, just imagine if all your media was only available on-line - you could only rent it, it would be playable on your PC but only if the platform had sufficient technical measures in place to prevent you from copying it. You couldn't copy Office or Photoshop because its run directly from someone else's server. This would be a dream for software providers as they could charge you on a per use basis, and lock your data into their services. No more trying to sell upgrades as you wouldn't have a choice.
The only thing that stands in the way of that is a decent and mostly feature complete open code base, something that would allow you to do what you want with your computer, your "Intellectual Property" and the media you buy, or already own. We are seeing the end of the huge revenue streams for those people who provide a product that is easily reproduced. Those providers are looking for ways to re-generate those revenue streams, and I dont think the scenario I have outlined above is too outlandish for them to consider.
So the future is the web, we will in the future all pay a monthly fee and access our documents and media on-line (where consequently it easier to control what we have access to). Then 10-20 years down the line the on-line model will be seen as legacy and we will all jump out and buy a new fangled computer that lets you keep your content locally again, without paying an access fee, all by just buying a software license of an OS and some applications...
Or we could just not bother going with the latest fad designed to keep us spending, and preventing us from actually owning anything. As long as the good folks at Debian continue to produce a great distribution, and as long as people are willing to write software, I think I'll stick to what I know (and what I don't have to pay through the nose for.)
Yeah, I've been corrected on that score, seems that I've been reading too much on the political side (the US position and why it apparently couldn't / didn't want to help the US) so as to miss the fact that the US apparently supplied missiles and intelligence too. I stand corrected.
First off, the supply of missiles to the UK from the US is something that I wasn't aware of, mainly as it doesn't seem to be something that is common knowledge. Given that most of the history I have seen of that conflict and the various commentaries of US involvement seem to stop at the point were there is a discussion of America's ability to assist (due to treaty obligations and the Monroe doctrine), I would suggest that I made a mistake, and will happily agree that the US did, support the UK in the Falklands.
Your treatment of the Suez Crisis is facile. While you pan the United States, I don't see that the Commonwealth was particularly warm to the UK action in the Suez Crisis either.
As for that, the point of my post was to indicate that the UK should not rely on the US for military support as when the UK wishes to act in a manner which is not in the US interest, (just as the US may wish to act in a manner that is not in the UK interest) she should still be in a position to do so.
Who does the US share nuclear weapons secrets with?
As you have so eloquently pointed out above, the US shares nuclear secrets with the UK, if the US is willing to do that then why would they stop at providing the source code for aircraft?My point is simple, The UK should not be reliant on another power, who may or may not support the UK in future, this source code issue is a major one, as it implies a lack of trust.
The US is doing what it can to help the UK in one of the key battles of it's existence: the battle for Londonistan. Maybe it's just a selfish act to avoid ending up as America Alone.
The UK has fought terrorism in various guises for a long time, I dont think that any terrorist group is going to threaten the existence of the UK, although our politicians seem to be intent on destroying our way of life to help fight that same threat. Moreover I doubt that the terrorist threat to the UK (and indeed to the US) would be as great as it is apparently at the moment, if the US and UK had not invaded Iraq. An invasion that was supported by the UK, but not in my opinion, in her national interest (any more than say invading Sudan, Uzbekistan, Somalia, or anywhere else where there is a dictator, or cruelty by the state against the population), .The invasion of Afghanistan was sensible and needed, but I would question the benefits and rationality of invading Iraq.
As for the Londonistan reference, it generally worries me when people start believing media hype and inciting fear where it is not required. The UK is a multi-cultural society, and frankly it works quite well, not without exception given recent events, but considerably better than the view given by both our media and that of the US. There seems to be rather too much of the Muslim == Terrorist mindset (and worse the non-Muslim/foreign looking != Terrorist), and the press are happy to replay it at every opportunity, all that achieves is false fears, and alienation.
Anyway, I digress, I have a question for you, would the US buy British Harriers if the UK refused the US access to the avionics and weapons system software?
It appears you mistook my post as an attack on the US, - it wasn't, it was an argument against over reliance on the US, and the blind acceptance of US foreign policy, both of which are something the UK already does far to much of.
It's fascinating that you, and Mr. Blair, make a big deal of this - without mentioning that the UK's strategic deterrent is already in the hands of another country. The U.K. is utterly dependent on the U.S. for software and spares for the Trident-II submarines.
Because of course - making the same mistake twice is a good idea.....
Its funny - no-one in reply to my comment seems to have read my post fully. Let me be clear, I am saying is:
1) The US and UK haven't always been fully supportive of each other (i.e. Falklands, Suez).
2) I wouldn't expect the US and UK to be fully supportive of each other at all times.
3) The US can do what it wants with its secrets and technology - its theirs.
4) The UK shouldn't buy or use technology it may have to rely on if it is not in control of that technology (in this case the software being closed to the UK)
5) The UK's current (perceived) position of supporting the US at all costs is wrong and goes against the UK national interest, and is alienating the UK from some of her other traditional allies.
Hope that is clearer.
Its interesting, I have read that the US actively tried to dissuade the UK from its plans for an invasion as there was a belief that it would cause problems for the (US supported) military dictatorship that was running Argentina at the time, the US hoped that there could be an alternative solution, one that could be acceptable to both the UK and Argentina, - with both giving ground. Remember that they US officially remains neutral as to the sovereignty of the Falkland islands.
That is hardly giving "loads of support", but it was appreciated. My point is that the US felt it could not outright support the UK, as it had interests in the region, and those interests were at least of equal importance as the UK.
The situation with the Suez crisis is probably better as an indicator of UK and US interests clashing, but the fact remains, the UK cannot trust the US, if the UK's actions are not in the US's interests.
As such, the UK should not be reliant upon the US for any defensive or offensive military capability especially if the US does not trust the UK sufficiently to give the UK access to the software that has any bearing on that capability that
There was quite a bit of US support during the Falklands war. Go ask Lady Thatcher. There wasn't boots on the ground though. You can't honestly tell me that losing the Falklands, a few rocks with a few sheep, was a genuine threat to the UK. It was a threat to the UK's pride though.
Not true - Some members of the US Government saw it as in the US's Interest to side with the UK, and some wanted to remain neutral, others believed that they needed to back Argentina to prevent further communist expansion in South America. So in this instance the US did not, openly support the UK, nor push the UK's case in diplomatic efforts. As for being a threat to the UK, I assume that in your opinion it is OK for a country, run by a military dictatorship, (at that time) supported by the US, and an aggressor to invade another countries territory? Under the circumstances I don't see what options other than retaking the Falklands, the UK had.
Perhaps the US saw the seizing of the Suez canal by UK and France as against its interests?
Indeed, that is correct they did see it as counter to US interests, however the point I am making is that we should not blindly assume that the US will support the UK, so lets assume that a similar situation arose and the UK was reliant on the US to keep its military aircraft working, but the US decides that the UK cannot have the modifications / updates or whatever the UK requires - that is in the US interest, but counter to the UK one. In essence, you are making my point here.
Think that one over. Which countries do you trust more than the US? France? Germany? Spain?
I don't think that the who do you trust "more" argument is valid, I (or rather the UK) shouldn't *need* to trust anyone, but since you are asking; I would trust Germany and Belgium more than the US. Frankly France has interests closer to those of the UK than the US, so again considering that, I would trust France more than the US. (although France like the US will only do what she perceives is in her own interest, so that "trust" would require regular review, just as it should with the US). If nothing else at least these states have a global outlook that is more aligned with the UK, even if it diverges occasionally. I think that it is clear that the UK need to follow most of the rest of the world, and get back to being self reliant, and formulating its own foreign policy, not taking orders and instructions from, or relying on a foreign power.
(Almost to the tune of "this old man", or for you yanks, "that annoying Barney I love you song", you'll see!)
I Trust You.
You Trust Me.
Here's An authentication
Lib-Ra-Ry
With A Little Hack,
Password Crack,
Code Inject Or Three
All Your Servers Are Belong To Me.
Sadly without this agreement the UK really should simply say no to any involvement, however I would suggest that the UK will still splash out anyway. The entire US/UK Special relationship is pretty much a myth anyway and more to the point it has been regarding foreign policy matters for a long time, placing even more dependence on the US in areas of defence is a bad idea.
There seems to be (in the UK at least) a memory lapse within political circles, that the US has in the past simply not stood with the UK.
The Lack of US support during the Falklands war, and outright opposition to the Suez crisis, should show that the UK cannot rely on US military power to support the UK's own operations and aims, and nor should it. The US will always look after itself, it will only take action when it feels its own perceived interests are involved or if there is sufficient domestic political pressure to do so, and the UK really should follow suit. Frankly that is a sensible position for any nation state to take. The UK governments current position of "follow the US's lead wherever it is demanded" is downright treasonous.
The UK needs to continue to maintain forces, equipment and any other capabilities independently or with allies as long as the UK is capable of maintaining the same, in the absence of their allies. It would be foolhardy to rely on the US (or France/Germany/Italy etc..) for equipment, parts, support, or armaments in the case of war, especially if any of those allies were opposed to the conflict.
The one thing I do feel that is surprising with this scenario is that the US will happily sell the aircraft to the UK. I would have assumed that any sensitive information about the aircraft would be available from the aircraft itself, which of course presents the question as to whether there are either surprises in the software that would give the US any advantage in the unlikely event that these aircraft were used against them. Although ignoring that (slight conspiracy theory) surely it should also raise questions about the quality of the software.
Anyway, I see no reason why the UK cannot simply continue to work on its own or with allies who full trust the UK, rather than be treated as an interloper or a poor cousin by the US.
fantastic last line. Beautiful.
I know its not technical and nor does it have a wow factor or allow you to log into a web based control and monitoring page in the "interweb", but how about asking a friend / neighbour to keep an eye on it for you? That way if something goes wrong they may be able to help you sort out any problems without you coming back, plus they are more flexible, able to deal with the weather, any break-ins, any mail that doesn't get misdirected or anything else for that matter.
Obviously the issue here, and it a big one, is Trust.
Its strange I have an ancient Dell latitude cpx (500Mhz PIII with 384Mb RAM and a fairly modern 2.5 80Gb HDD) - All I use it for is on the road stuff like keeping up with email, a bit of net access, reading and editing odf's the odd presentation and a few other minor things and it works a charm. Its running Debian with KDE slimmed down somewhat, but performs perfectly adequately, to be fair I use konqueror for web access, - although firefox seems perfectly fine to, so I'm not sure what your problem is...
The only problem I have is watching movies on it, (Handy when travelling) basically the audio goes out of sync with the video if I try and watch anything not specially cut down for it, although mencoder deals with that. Moreover I have three batteries for it (its of a modular design so I can stick two in at once... with one spare) so it is good for even the longest journey, - about 2hrs per battery between charges. Oh and unlike my other laptops - it doesn't seem to break when dropped.... (50.50 chance that will change next time I drop it...)
Whilst we are semi on the subject of Linux on different devices, so far I have only seen the benefits of it and when people put some effort in this generally provides fantastic performance and capabilities - I have an IPAQ H2215 with Familiar Linux and Opie on - and performs massively better under Linux than under windows, - i.e. playing mp3's is now seamless, I can if I wish watch a movie on it.. (320x240,, but hey its OK for a short while). No more problems with large e-books, pdf's, rtf's etc.. a stack of games, a great PIM, bluetooth, web browsing via my phone and a selection of web browsers. Its even possible to stick a web server on (and a seemingly for static content.. an extremely fast one at that) also and most important for me I can sync all the data with my desktop extremely easily, and back up the CF card (with the OS n) completely.
Erbium-doping not withstanding - (I have no real experience with fibre over more than a few thousand meters, and haven't seen the need yet for looking at amplification...), I know that we used to see some signal degradation over distances of 1-2km, with fairly high grade fibre, and even had issues with usability at 800m with some of the lower quality stuff - interestingly this seemed to be more pronounced when using network hardware - in this case HP kit, whilst Telecom related equipment seemed more robust.
I would assume that there are technical costs associated with increased range and I would guess that those costs would manifest themselves as an impact on any data transmission rate - whether through increased noise / error correction requirements.
Ah - But how do you know that there was no advertising in ancient Greek and Egyptian societies? You know; papyrus scrolls pasted on the side of pyramids with enticing messages such as;
.... 5UP ER L0W PR 1CE5 ON V1RG1N!!!!! 0L1VE 0!L, .. and there was a citizen in Pompei who decided to sell his carts... on the high sea there were many storms"
:)
"Sphinx for your sphinx, sugar for my honey - best deals on mummification", "Plato - Republic, available in read once and burn, and read thrice and burn (Papyrus Restriction Mechanisms (PRM))" or little notes passed under your door explaining that you need to buy "Dioclese said to Athena that there should be a
This may prove conclusively that advertising is the cause of all depression.
or then again maybe not
Chicken and egg -
Once the connectivity is there, hardware will become available and gradually more accessible as it is taken up, same goes the other way - if someone suddenly comes up with a bus and card capable of even higher speeds, it will slowly become available and more accessible until connectivity catches up and everyone wants it. Its all about getting to the point were a (potential) mass market appears and it makes the R&D viable. In the short term you will obviously see niche markets for it anyway - and they will pay buckets of cash for this kind of tech because they see a benefit from it.
*ISPs need to be more proactive at disconnecting people who can't keep their computer clean.*
d =kb*****
I agree in principal - but disagree in practice, - I have had a number of calls and even been disconnected by various ISP's due to behaviour that they assumed was viral - simply because their methods of detection were too simplistic - perfect for most people but a pain for many others - the solution in my case was to go for an ISP that was rather more expensive than the norm...
Oh and the reasons for the calls and disconnections -
Your computer has a virus because it is sending and receiving email directly - via ports 25 + 993, - apparently (according to their documentation) I either had a virus or my mail client was incorrectly configured - I should change the SMTP server to smtp.foo.com and my "pop3" server (never mind that 993 is clearly related to IMAP) to pop.foo.smtp. - My return calls to the ISP required escalation to their 3rd level before they understood that I didn't want to use their mail servers.... (I was even told that their servers were incompatible with my servers, and that there was no such thing as an IMAP server...."its POP3 for Post Office Server...")). So real reason for the disconnect was me using a mail client with my own servers - this was before I used a local mail server - more on that later....
Same ISP; I used port 23456 for testing an app I was writing (still am writing - its intended to manage a number of Debian machines apt configs and updates etc creating groups of them etc...) - I was told that I had been detected as a Hacker by technical support. I changed ports - and then left that ISP about am month later.
New ISP was taken over by another ISP after about 8 months of my contract with them. At about this time I had started to use my own mail server and about 2 weeks after that all mail associated ports (for some reason except 587) would return errors - ( Here is a copy of the message received whenever you try to connect to port 25 manually - the same for others...)
server-001:/home/*********# telnet smtp.foo.com 25
Trying 216.234.246.150...
Connected to smtp.foo.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
554 Please check your SMTP server is set to smtp.********.com. Further help is available at http://help.*******.com/sessionBegin.do?solutionI
Connection closed by foreign host.
(*'s to protect the innocent - which they are sort of..)
Again major discussions with tech support - first off with them claiming that no ports were blocked or redirected (I recorded that call and played it back to every level of support I got passed to...) Anyway I was finally told that yes they only allowed mail through their servers (but why was I not using either their mail servers or a web mail service? - they even offered to help me set up a hotmail address....). This was apparently due to the sending of spam and due to issues with virus infections so I guess its a fair point. So rather than putting up much of a fight (as in contract terms and TOS etc.. I offered to leave if they terminated the contract without penalty (which they did and let me keep the router that I had never used, a set of cordless dect phones (Which was nice) and a 4 month old sony k800i. Not bad - and no grumbles.
I now have a business account with a major provider - and all is well.
I guess what I am saying is that its all well and good detecting things which could be malicious - but you will miss a lot (there is only so much you can do) and you will block a lot of legitimate users - or identify them incorrectly as viral.
Last point it turns out that the ISP that forces you to use their mail servers will relay any mail from within its network regardless of pretty much anything (including the lack of from addresses or the inclusion of hundreds of recipients) so the blocking of mail there is really part of their solution (presumably they monitor what goes through their mail servers too...) which may have an impact on privacy as well as on the flexibility of service.
Anyway. As I said - I agree with you but I am not sure how the ISP's are supposed to do it. Clearly mandatory virus scans are out of the question.
Fisrt off TCO is valid - if you know what the TCO for a sytem is / will be you can budget correctly - and plan for upgrades etc.. - in short you have some sort of financial stability. Microsoft just skew figures regarding their software, - much like every other software or services provider...
Secondly the problem with *some* companies is that they dont plan long term - so if a system appears cheaper in the first year, that is what they will use, - two reasons for this 1) It looks good in the short term and the board will be happy, plus the person responsible may have moved or beed promoted / sacked before the benefits of their decision are realised (so someone else wil get the credit for it - or even worse they will appear to have made a poor decision - that cost too much money...). 2) Tehy have seen many many products that claim; "...the cost to change is high but then it drops and you will be laughing all the way to the bank..." but then it turns out that the initial costs are high and that the TCO is also just as high or not very different from the origional system.
Of course there are also those who believe that having the "latest" and "best" is required - and strangley IT managers / IT directors seem to see Microsoft as "Best". (Just after bespoke software (something like the difference between buying a tower block to put your head office in and having one built to spec...). For these guys pointing out that the *nix systems are as close to bespoke as they are going to get (in reality most "bespoke" systems are based on something COTS like anyway) sometimes helps"!)
Anyway - not disagreeing with you much either, but hey - thought I'd say.
Is this the game where you have to count how many seconds it takes for /dev/null to fill up? Im up to 6 already!!! :)