Knowing Apple, that isn't going to happen. A shame.
Knowing Apple, the product will be lame, but will appeal to wannabes/posers. It will be white, of course. Probably shiny in places, too.
I just bought a Dell 2407WFP (1920x1200) LCD monitor that is competetive with the high-end display Apple sells for the Mac. Guess what? The Apple product (Apple M9178LLA Silver 23" Cinema HD LCD Display) is smaller, costs more, and offers nothing extra of significance...unless it makes you feel trendy to waste money on an Apple logo item.
Remember, Apple is the company that thought the single-button mouse was revolutionary..even after they ripped off the WIMP interface concept (that MS later snagged for Winblows) from Xerox PARC. Hmmm...I have several fingers on each of my two hands...why limit myself to only one button per pointing device? Maybe Apple figures its typical consumer is confused by numbers greater than 1...
Yeah...I ought to flame iPodiots, too, but the marketplace is now (finally) doing that for me.:-)
WTF is up with slashdot (or submitter) calling 18-15 year olds the iPod generation, and wtf is up with CNN saying 'the web generation'? Both are stupid, and imply incorrect things.
I think it is fair to call 18-25 year olds the Web Generation...they are the first to learn to read when the Web was commonplace. They know that they can get the news (and maybe the real story) from the Web as opposed to the distorted TV network news (that includes CNN and FOX, as well as ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS).
Most of these "kids" (read: about 1/2 my age) are not at all stupid or ignorant. Most are not iPodiots. Increasingly, they realize that iPods are just excruciatingly proprietary MP3 players and are buying better alternatives that don't lock them into the Apple ripoff.
For me, it is refreshing to be able to talk to a coworker who just graduated college and who is very interested in space exploration (reference: another current thread on/.) He knows the Web at least as well as I do, but not for as long...I had fun introducing him to Dysfunctional Family Circus...er, rather the copies that float around the Web, now that the original Spinnwebe DFC is history.) He also seems to have great distain for iPods. That is a Good Thing(tm). Savvy consumers make the marketplace work. Paying too much for a brand name is silly when the generics offer better performance at less cost.
The poster who said that the latest generation of adults grew up with space exploration and is therefore jaded by things like space shuttle launches, much less the latest comsat orbital insertions, is 110% correct. Near space exploration is routine, just as travel by jetliner is. Times change. I'm of a generation where one got a bit dressed up before getting on a commercial flight. Now I don't bother. I try to adapt.
I like space exploration. I like affordable air travel. I am not ever going to be an iPodiot. I don't do logowear.
The makers of "Real Genius" has some good technical consultants.
More importantly, they got the hacker attitude right. The choice of a high-output laser as the tech the plot centered around was a good one, as it is visually interesting, although I'm not at all convinced an effective laser weapon would be designed to work in the visible spectrum. I'd think a uWave laser (tuned to the same frequency your uWave oven uses) would make better mass quanities of popcorn...
At some fundamental level, the folks behind "Real Genius" understood that most hackers/geeks think of technology as being a fascinating collection of toys that a lucky few can get paid for playing with for the benefit of non-tech types who don't understand it.
Now for a glimpse of what computerized weapons systems are really like, you might want to see if you can find a copy of "Dark Star". When smart bombs go philosophic...
PreacherTom is an astroturfer for BusinessWeek magazine.
BusinessWeak magazine? Come on, it is tabloid business journalism at its lamest; entertaining yes, informative sometimes, but rarely if you want in depth information about the topics it purports to cover. I have an MBA and while I could cite some monthly business periodicals in the papers I wrote for classes, Businessweek was rarely one of them.
The WSJ is much better, more accurate, and more insightful and has far more interesting articles in any given week than BusinessWeak does in a typical month. I guess that is why BW needs shills...
After doing more research, I appreciate your comment. I happen to have some slight clue as to how to make nuclear or bio WOMDs.:-( It doesn't take a rocket scientist! I can do the math. Posting the relevant data seems innocuous to me. Go figure.
There is a huge difference between telling folks about how to "build a bomb" and directing them to deploy such a thing against some specific group of peeps.
Mostly, I just want to be left alone. I do not appreciate Big Brother's intrusions into my life (lame though it may be). The War on (PCIncorrect) terrorism bothers me. I have friends from many parts of the world and some of them are not Christian by faith.
According to my understanding of the law in the U.S. (IANAL...yet) you are correct. It is the inciting of (criminal) action that can get one in trouble here.
I can say "Fuck(1) the [whatever oh-so-PC group]!", and not incure the wrath of Big Brother, but if I say "Exterminate [the aforementioned group]!" I will be in major legal trouble if what I say catches the attention of law enforcement.
So it goes...
(1): Presuming that I am not accused of inciting a rape...
I'd rather see NASA spend more money on developing safer vehicles, or on robotic missions, than on bizarre contraptions like this. Heck, they might as well build a loop-d-loop at the bottom so tourists can pay to ride it.
Personally, so would I. But NASA has public perception to factor in. It just doesn't spin as well to put the "First Robot on [x]" as it does to let a human give a short speech from there. This is not a stricly engineering issue. Marketing matters.
Microsoft is NOT concerned about the stability or security of your system that is running a Windoze OS. MS only cares about extracting as much money from you as it can before its "house of cards" OS collapses in the face of real flaws and security threats and some FOSS OS (Ubuntu anyone?) becomes the new default. Why else would MS be siding with SuSe and/or Novell? As a rule, MS goes against your best interests.
For those who don't realize it, Ron Paul ran for President once as the Libertarian Candidate.
Yeah, then he began to understand Realpoliticks. Paul can be more effective as a libertarian-leaning member of the GOP's controlling Congress than he can as a Libertarian Party candidate that the ignorant Demmie or GOP masses will not vote for because he doesn't belong to "their party".
Ron Paul isn't a perfect legislator, but he comes closer to what I want in a representative than almost any other Congresscritter in my adult life...too bad he is from TX (a nice place to live) and not a decaying leftist state (where I happen to be at the moment). He could right more wrongs in a place like CA, IL, or NJ.
There is indeed an attempt to make EULAs contractually enforceable, the so called Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA).
Wikipedia's article on the subject, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCITA, does however claim the UCITA "has only been passed in two states as of 2004 -- Virginia and Maryland".
Hmmm. In what two states are many US government intelligence and law enforcement agencies headquartered? DC itself is not a state, of couse, but it is interesting that the only two states that think UCITA is a good thing happen to be right near the seat of the federal government.
Let me expand upon the nice reference to Godwin's Law that some AC referenced...
Godwin's Law:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
So what? Perhaps I should have included examples such as China, North Korea, the former USSR, and a host of other nations where the government does/would routinely trample the rights and and deny the liberties of its subjects... whenever it suited the government in question to do so.
The problem is that none of the examples I can think of involves a government that was once known for protecting the rights of the People and promoting their liberties while at the same time defining those rights and liberties broadly and in a central (legal) document (e.g., a constitution). As far as I know, Germany never has been a nation that civil libertarians pointed to with pride as they used it for an example of how things should be done. The U.S. was once such a shining example. The situation has decayed to the point where the U.S. government can only be described as being somewhat less oppressive overall than that of any other major world power.
An observation that is very relevent to this forum is the way that government at all levels is rapidly adopting the latest tech to benefit itself, at the expense of the people it is supposed to serve. Germany was well known for using new tech for all the wrong reasons.
People have been crying, "Godwin's Law!", to stifle conversations (both good and bad) for many years, since back when UseNet and FidoNet were the major online forums -- I know, I've been participating in such forums since about a decade before Godwin made his insightful comment. To find out more about Godwin's Law and how to avoid getting squelched by its mere invocation, see The Godwin's Law FAQ.
"It's probably a little bit more dangerous to live in a very free country, than one with a strict totalitarian regime who controls every movement everybody makes... but most people will take that tradeoff."
One can only hope that most people see their freedom/liberty and individual rights being slowly eroded in the name of (bogus) safety.
I don't know about you, but I have never been directly adversely affected by a terrorist or some obvious act of terrorism (not the namby-pamby kind of "terrorism" that involves nothing more than someone feeling uncomfortable or vaguely threatened).
On the other hand, the War on Terrorism, like the War on (Some) Drugs, and every other crisis the U.S. government invents to further its agenda, to the detriment of the best interests of the people and in direct opposition to its ostensible reason for being, namely to uphold the Constitution of the United States, is making my life (and quite probably that of most people reading this) worse on a regular basis.
These days, unlike when I was a teenager, the equivalent of the Gestapo goon's order, "Your papers, please!", is very real in the USA. The jackbooted thugs are not Nazi Germans, but rather TSA, BATF, DEA, EPA, and FBI agents as well as other minions of the federal government and their state and local bully boys.
Why should any average person, engaged in ordinary behavior be expected to carry ID, much less present it like a good little subject/ward of the State?
Of course, I may be out of touch...I remember when the very notion of patenting an idea was considered absurd. Software patents would have been dismissed as ludicrous. So it goes...downhill. I also remember when I could go to the airport, buy a ticket (paying with cash if that was my preference), get on a plane and travel, effectively anonymously as one's stated name was simply accepted, and arrive at my chosen destination (within the U.S., anyway); never feeling the presence of any government agency looming over me (with the remote exception being the FAA:-).
It all boils down to this: Who do you want controlling your life (and the lives of the people you interact with on a daily basis) -- you (and them), or Big Brother armed with the latest high tech surveillance gear, weaponry and a nearly complete disregard for the Constitution?
I'll take my chances when I get on a flight to Las Vegas that some rabid anti-abortion, anti-gambling activist group has not decided to hijack the plane and crash it into Caesar's Palace as some sort of protest against all the imagined evils that it's members think Sin City represents.
I know, based on statistics and documented history, that I am far more likely to be harmed by government than I am by an organization such as Al Quaeda. Taxes taken out of my pocket to fund these government Wars on This, That, and The-Other-Thing which just happen to make me less free are definitely a threat to my well being. Are you any different?
I like to keep my Ubuntu Linux box reasonably current, as I am trying to become enough of an expert at Linux to avoid wasting money on Vista just because that is where Windoze is heading and Windoze is the default PC OS these days, sad to say.
That being said, I wonder how soon a savvy computer user should plan on doing an upgrade such as the one from Ubuntu 6.06 to 6.10? As someone who is often paid to make recommendations about Windoze (license) purchases, upgrades, and related application software issues, in addition to all of the other things that one should consider when making a major OS decision, I realize I don't have a good intuitive feel for how long I should wait before upgrading Ubuntu.
With Windoze, a good rule of thumb is to put off major release changes for at least six months...that way the early adopters (read: guinea pigs) get to enjoy all the fresh bugs, security holes and goofy design flaws. By the time an MS Service Pack for the new version has been out for at least two months (and isn't getting ridiculed too much in the tech press/forums), it is usually safe to go ahead with the upgrade (IMHO).
What is a good default timeline for doing Linux upgrades, particularly where new releases of Ubuntu are concerned?
The only vista on my horizon is (the newest version of) Ubuntu,
Fractalzone
"The ability to close and continue sessions later removes a major reason why many people kept their browsers open for long periods of time. [...]
So even if some leaks remain, the problems they cause are reduced."
Just because a new feature serves as a workaround that mitigates a known serious flaw in a program does not imply that the problem has been corrected or should be ignored. I hope the Mozilla.org folks pay attention here. There are many millions of us who like Firefox and use it by default...avoiding IE as much as possible.
But the sort of tech savvy folks who will try and then adopt brave new software are often most sensitive to unresolved issues with it, especially if they affect system performance, reliability, or security.
Having used Web browsers since one had to concern one's self with the differences between the various flavors of Mosaic (NCSA, Spyglass, etc.), I'm very comfortable using recent versions of Firefox, Opera, IE, and Netscape...in that order, which happens to reflect my preferences. Netscape used to come before IE. Opera is still very lean and mean. It would be a Good Thing(tm) if a (F)OSS browser (or several) dominated the market for such apps.
It is too bad that Microsoft was not ordered to completely unbundle its Web browser from its operating system. I am sure there would have been a much better IE7 on the market years sooner if MS was motivated to compete in that area, instead of having overwhelming market share by default.
"This week the security firm Authentium found a workaround for Patch Guard, the security feature Microsoft has embedded into the 64-bit version of Windows."
Anything that highlights one of the many flaws in a typical Microsoft (In)security feature should not be considered an a mere exploit or even a workaround, but rather a tremendous public service! When said public service enables the installation of real security features (as opposed to the buggy bloatware which Microsoft Hype(tm) labels a "security feature"), Microsoft should not be allowed to use its monopoly power to silence or eliminate the very worthy competition. Of course the latter goal, getting rid of competitors, not protecting its users, is the real objective of Microsoft's attempted lock down of its 64-bit Windows kernel.
One of the principles of any good security scheme is that it is not dependent on obscurity. If Microsoft was truly confident of its code, it would make the code open source. In reality, Microsoft is quite aware of how lame its code is and knows that even without seeing the source, other people are making an honest living delivering fixes for Microsoft's blunders. Hence, Microsoft tries to exclude the competition by preventing their products from working.
In the area of computer security, perhaps more than anywhere else, Microsoft is working very hard to lower the bar in order to increase its profits at the expense of ordinary users. I, for one, do not trust Microsoft. Just look at the spyware known as Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) notification that Microsft tried to foist upon the unsuspecting masses. Informed people refer to it as Windows Genuine Disadvantage...
I want someone with a vested interest in pointing out the glaring design flaws, numerous bugs, and generally feeble nature of the so-called security features in Microsoft's products to be able to implement effective solutions that protect the users of Microsoft products from malware, crackers, and (hopefully) Microsoft itself.
Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Stupendous Karma,
Fractalzone
And what, pray tell, do you think the policeman's brain is executing when he is deciding whether or not to accost you?
Not an algorithm that you or anyone I've heard or read about could code to work on a von Neumann machine in an ideal world, much less an existing computer in our world.
Humans are terribly good at pattern recognition. Computers are way too mechanistic about such things and tend to suck at them except in very specialized cases -- much progress is being made in this area of research, however.
What a cop on the street does is perform very complex pattern recognition based on many, many factors with can be loosely grouped by input (what his senses detect plus his background body of knowledge -- his working database) and how those inputs change over time. (An enthusiastic but friendly bear hug, for example, doesn't usually usually leave the huggee lying twitching or motionless on the ground, whereas a mugging might well do so.) The cop is basing his reaction on a huge body of stored knowledge about the environment, the appearance of the people in question, current events, the latest orders he has received, etc. A computer has to make do with exactly what it is told to do. Computers are fast, consistent and basically stupid. Most people (including cops) are able to figure out what is going on in a real world situation and act (respond quickly, if need be) somewhat accordingly, at least from their perspective.
Learn assembly language and write a simple app like rudimentary text editor or line-art drawing tool, something that requires most of the basic IO functions. (Then try an application launching menu - yay memory management!:)
I agree with what you said, but am going to explain why it helps to be good at one (or several) assembly languages.
If you can write I/O routines and convert the sort of algorithms needed to write a text editor into.asm code, you understand what is really going on at the machine level. That knowledge will allow you to grow beyond being a VB coder (the modern equivalent of a the old COBOL coder) who can't do much except slap together classes (modules) that some real programmer designed, wrote and tested.
Thats exactly what I want. I do not want to have any software patch the kernel.
If there is no way for the spyware to patch the kernel I don't need McAfee or Symantec there at all. First thing I do with a new home machine is to strip off the AV software provided by Dell as cramware. Machines run so much faster and more reliably without. Then I turn off AutoRun and hook it up to my internal network which has twin SPI firewalls.
OK. So you aren't a programmer, at last not a gifted systems programmer. Many, many people are...and Microsoft can't seem to hire the best ones, or even mostly good ones, judging by the glaring flaws in Microsoft Buggy Bloatware(tm) such as Vista, Office, and Internet Explorer.
The facts PROVE that Microsoft can't write small and fast code, much less secure, relatively bugfree, and very tight code like the kernel of a modern OS calls for.
Any intelligent, sane person prefers to have important things on his/her computer be repairable or replaceable quickly and easily by more than one vendor, especially if the original manufacturer has a long history of lousy quality control and bad service, as Microsoft does.
I want independent third party experts to be able to exterminate the bugs and patch the security holes that Microsoft blithly includes in its crapware...crapware it would never be able to sell much of without abusing its monopoly over the desktop OS and office suite.
What I would really like to see happen is a group get together and come up with a swap-in replacement for MS's 64-bit kernel, and a lot of other broken-by-design parts of Windoze. A lot of companies have been somewhat over very successful in creating drop-in replacements for factory hardware (think Intel CPUs, graphics cards that run circles around the GPUs built into most mobos, improved sound cards, etc.) Software vendors have often improved upon common apps via add-ins or add-ons, some of which definitely alter the way core code in the base app works.
Would you by a car that could only be repaired by a the factory, whenever the company happened to feel in the mood to come up with fixes for its numerous design flaws? That's what Microsoft is trying to do by preventing anyone else from fixing, or heaven forbid, improving upon its crappy code by locking them out of it.
I'm getting pretty sick of all the "Addicted to [insert something here]" articles on Slashdot. As far as I'm concerned they are all dupes of some type or another.
True.
Either it can be defined in terms of real physical science (physics, chemistry, etc.) or it is psychobabble and/or religion...
I can glean more useful info on [random topic] than most people can in several years of college study. Go figure! I strive to grok the 'Net...or at least try make effective use of it.
The 'Net can allow one to focus in, or be very distracted...sometimes both.
Now I know why I did so well as an engineering student in my Liberal Arts classes: I can spot (excessive) Big Words with "in" meanings and utilize them effectively.:-)
I suspect you are trying to distinguish trendy from significant changes... If you can do it repeatedly, you can get rich.
Words mean what I want them to, when I am lucky or inspired...or too tired to care about the result.
"If every FOSS project behaved as Mozilla does then almost EVERY piece of software in most Linux distros would have to be renamed. Just how does this help with public perception and branding?"
How would you feel if someone started distributing shitloads of copies of a GUI for *nix systems, based on Gnome, that they called "Gnome" but which was extremely buggy, messed with other critical software on a user's box, phoned home to the people who are behind it and did a core dump of all sorts of information about the user along with anything that looks like it might identify the users of said system? Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention they made sure it could not be easily uninstalled.
Right now, if I get something based on the Linux kernel, I know I can expect the core part of the OS to behave in certain predictable ways. When I decide to use Gnome rather than KDF (for example) I have a good idea of what I will get. What is wrong with that? It works rather well, I'd say.
I've taken a look at the proposed GPLv3 and, at first glance, I don't see where it prohibits anyone who decides ti use such a licensing scheme from keeping control of the brand name of whatever they create and distribute -- it just says that source code must remain open source (free as in free speech). I'm not going to get into a technical legal thread discussion (I still want to be an IP lawyer, but am not one yet).
GPL makes heavy use of terms such as "unmodified program". But, more specifically, the proposed GPLv3 says, "Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software." Since GNU is certainly a major source of great FOSS, I'm using that as a case in point.
Debian wants to modify a program without distinguishing their version from the original. Bad Debian! If they don't like it the way it is and can't live with whatever legal restrictions there are on use of the name "Firefox" to refer to a browser, they should come up with their own name. Hmm, somebody has come up with Iceweasel which is apparently based on the same code that Firefox is. Funny that! Sounds like excellent/. fodder.:-)
When I think of FOSS, I do not assume that all brands of software that have the same roots under an open source license are created equal, nor that I should not be sure to distinguish between them. 0Look at all the flavors (brands) of Linux people can choose from. The only think they have in common is the Linux kernel (thanks, Linus!). At least we know that whoever builds a complete OS around a Linux kernal had enough of a clue to start with a good foundation. Things differ from that point, as most Linux users realize. I want to know whose derivative software I am using.
"All beer is good beer. Some beer is better than others." That describes exactly why brand names matter and why they ought to enjoy protection under the law, expecially when the underlying product can be made and distributed by almost anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Knowing Apple, that isn't going to happen. A shame.
:-)
Knowing Apple, the product will be lame, but will appeal to wannabes/posers. It will be white, of course. Probably shiny in places, too.
I just bought a Dell 2407WFP (1920x1200) LCD monitor that is competetive with the high-end display Apple sells for the Mac. Guess what? The Apple product (Apple M9178LLA Silver 23" Cinema HD LCD Display) is smaller, costs more, and offers nothing extra of significance...unless it makes you feel trendy to waste money on an Apple logo item.
Remember, Apple is the company that thought the single-button mouse was revolutionary..even after they ripped off the WIMP interface concept (that MS later snagged for Winblows) from Xerox PARC. Hmmm...I have several fingers on each of my two hands...why limit myself to only one button per pointing device? Maybe Apple figures its typical consumer is confused by numbers greater than 1...
Yeah...I ought to flame iPodiots, too, but the marketplace is now (finally) doing that for me.
WTF is up with slashdot (or submitter) calling 18-15 year olds the iPod generation, and wtf is up with CNN saying 'the web generation'? Both are stupid, and imply incorrect things.
/.) He knows the Web at least as well as I do, but not for as long...I had fun introducing him to Dysfunctional Family Circus...er, rather the copies that float around the Web, now that the original Spinnwebe DFC is history.) He also seems to have great distain for iPods. That is a Good Thing(tm). Savvy consumers make the marketplace work. Paying too much for a brand name is silly when the generics offer better performance at less cost.
I think it is fair to call 18-25 year olds the Web Generation...they are the first to learn to read when the Web was commonplace. They know that they can get the news (and maybe the real story) from the Web as opposed to the distorted TV network news (that includes CNN and FOX, as well as ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS).
Most of these "kids" (read: about 1/2 my age) are not at all stupid or ignorant. Most are not iPodiots. Increasingly, they realize that iPods are just excruciatingly proprietary MP3 players and are buying better alternatives that don't lock them into the Apple ripoff.
For me, it is refreshing to be able to talk to a coworker who just graduated college and who is very interested in space exploration (reference: another current thread on
The poster who said that the latest generation of adults grew up with space exploration and is therefore jaded by things like space shuttle launches, much less the latest comsat orbital insertions, is 110% correct. Near space exploration is routine, just as travel by jetliner is. Times change. I'm of a generation where one got a bit dressed up before getting on a commercial flight. Now I don't bother. I try to adapt.
I like space exploration. I like affordable air travel. I am not ever going to be an iPodiot. I don't do logowear.
The makers of "Real Genius" has some good technical consultants.
More importantly, they got the hacker attitude right. The choice of a high-output laser as the tech the plot centered around was a good one, as it is visually interesting, although I'm not at all convinced an effective laser weapon would be designed to work in the visible spectrum. I'd think a uWave laser (tuned to the same frequency your uWave oven uses) would make better mass quanities of popcorn...
At some fundamental level, the folks behind "Real Genius" understood that most hackers/geeks think of technology as being a fascinating collection of toys that a lucky few can get paid for playing with for the benefit of non-tech types who don't understand it.
Now for a glimpse of what computerized weapons systems are really like, you might want to see if you can find a copy of "Dark Star". When smart bombs go philosophic...
PreacherTom is an astroturfer for BusinessWeek magazine.
BusinessWeak magazine? Come on, it is tabloid business journalism at its lamest; entertaining yes, informative sometimes, but rarely if you want in depth information about the topics it purports to cover. I have an MBA and while I could cite some monthly business periodicals in the papers I wrote for classes, Businessweek was rarely one of them.
The WSJ is much better, more accurate, and more insightful and has far more interesting articles in any given week than BusinessWeak does in a typical month. I guess that is why BW needs shills...
Thanks!
:-( It doesn't take a rocket scientist! I can do the math. Posting the relevant data seems innocuous to me. Go figure.
After doing more research, I appreciate your comment. I happen to have some slight clue as to how to make nuclear or bio WOMDs.
There is a huge difference between telling folks about how to "build a bomb" and directing them to deploy such a thing against some specific group of peeps.
Mostly, I just want to be left alone. I do not appreciate Big Brother's intrusions into my life (lame though it may be). The War on (PCIncorrect) terrorism bothers me. I have friends from many parts of the world and some of them are not Christian by faith.
According to my understanding of the law in the U.S. (IANAL...yet) you are correct. It is the inciting of (criminal) action that can get one in trouble here.
I can say "Fuck(1) the [whatever oh-so-PC group]!", and not incure the wrath of Big Brother, but if I say "Exterminate [the aforementioned group]!" I will be in major legal trouble if what I say catches the attention of law enforcement.
So it goes...
(1): Presuming that I am not accused of inciting a rape...
Does Ted Stevens provide plumbing service for Intel nanoproducts? He's the tube expert! He must know all about these exotic nanotube thingies...
I'd rather see NASA spend more money on developing safer vehicles, or on robotic missions, than on bizarre contraptions like this. Heck, they might as well build a loop-d-loop at the bottom so tourists can pay to ride it.
Personally, so would I. But NASA has public perception to factor in. It just doesn't spin as well to put the "First Robot on [x]" as it does to let a human give a short speech from there. This is not a stricly engineering issue. Marketing matters.
Get real!
Microsoft is NOT concerned about the stability or security of your system that is running a Windoze OS. MS only cares about extracting as much money from you as it can before its "house of cards" OS collapses in the face of real flaws and security threats and some FOSS OS (Ubuntu anyone?) becomes the new default. Why else would MS be siding with SuSe and/or Novell? As a rule, MS goes against your best interests.
I declined it as a First Post. (Did thatyesterday. :-)
I was (and am) genuinely curious as to what all the babble boils down to.
is this all about?
What a go, Ron Paul.
For those who don't realize it, Ron Paul ran for President once as the Libertarian Candidate.
Yeah, then he began to understand Realpoliticks. Paul can be more effective as a libertarian-leaning member of the GOP's controlling Congress than he can as a Libertarian Party candidate that the ignorant Demmie or GOP masses will not vote for because he doesn't belong to "their party".
Ron Paul isn't a perfect legislator, but he comes closer to what I want in a representative than almost any other Congresscritter in my adult life...too bad he is from TX (a nice place to live) and not a decaying leftist state (where I happen to be at the moment). He could right more wrongs in a place like CA, IL, or NJ.
Nice. A new version of PHP...
There is indeed an attempt to make EULAs contractually enforceable, the so called Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA). Wikipedia's article on the subject, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCITA, does however claim the UCITA "has only been passed in two states as of 2004 -- Virginia and Maryland".
Hmmm. In what two states are many US government intelligence and law enforcement agencies headquartered? DC itself is not a state, of couse, but it is interesting that the only two states that think UCITA is a good thing happen to be right near the seat of the federal government.
Let me expand upon the nice reference to Godwin's Law that some AC referenced...
... whenever it suited the government in question to do so.
Godwin's Law:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
So what? Perhaps I should have included examples such as China, North Korea, the former USSR, and a host of other nations where the government does/would routinely trample the rights and and deny the liberties of its subjects
The problem is that none of the examples I can think of involves a government that was once known for protecting the rights of the People and promoting their liberties while at the same time defining those rights and liberties broadly and in a central (legal) document (e.g., a constitution). As far as I know, Germany never has been a nation that civil libertarians pointed to with pride as they used it for an example of how things should be done. The U.S. was once such a shining example. The situation has decayed to the point where the U.S. government can only be described as being somewhat less oppressive overall than that of any other major world power.
An observation that is very relevent to this forum is the way that government at all levels is rapidly adopting the latest tech to benefit itself, at the expense of the people it is supposed to serve. Germany was well known for using new tech for all the wrong reasons.
People have been crying, "Godwin's Law!", to stifle conversations (both good and bad) for many years, since back when UseNet and FidoNet were the major online forums -- I know, I've been participating in such forums since about a decade before Godwin made his insightful comment. To find out more about Godwin's Law and how to avoid getting squelched by its mere invocation, see The Godwin's Law FAQ.
"It's probably a little bit more dangerous to live in a very free country, than one with a strict totalitarian regime who controls every movement everybody makes... but most people will take that tradeoff."
:-).
One can only hope that most people see their freedom/liberty and individual rights being slowly eroded in the name of (bogus) safety.
I don't know about you, but I have never been directly adversely affected by a terrorist or some obvious act of terrorism (not the namby-pamby kind of "terrorism" that involves nothing more than someone feeling uncomfortable or vaguely threatened).
On the other hand, the War on Terrorism, like the War on (Some) Drugs, and every other crisis the U.S. government invents to further its agenda, to the detriment of the best interests of the people and in direct opposition to its ostensible reason for being, namely to uphold the Constitution of the United States, is making my life (and quite probably that of most people reading this) worse on a regular basis.
These days, unlike when I was a teenager, the equivalent of the Gestapo goon's order, "Your papers, please!", is very real in the USA. The jackbooted thugs are not Nazi Germans, but rather TSA, BATF, DEA, EPA, and FBI agents as well as other minions of the federal government and their state and local bully boys.
Why should any average person, engaged in ordinary behavior be expected to carry ID, much less present it like a good little subject/ward of the State?
Of course, I may be out of touch...I remember when the very notion of patenting an idea was considered absurd. Software patents would have been dismissed as ludicrous. So it goes...downhill. I also remember when I could go to the airport, buy a ticket (paying with cash if that was my preference), get on a plane and travel, effectively anonymously as one's stated name was simply accepted, and arrive at my chosen destination (within the U.S., anyway); never feeling the presence of any government agency looming over me (with the remote exception being the FAA
It all boils down to this: Who do you want controlling your life (and the lives of the people you interact with on a daily basis) -- you (and them), or Big Brother armed with the latest high tech surveillance gear, weaponry and a nearly complete disregard for the Constitution?
I'll take my chances when I get on a flight to Las Vegas that some rabid anti-abortion, anti-gambling activist group has not decided to hijack the plane and crash it into Caesar's Palace as some sort of protest against all the imagined evils that it's members think Sin City represents.
I know, based on statistics and documented history, that I am far more likely to be harmed by government than I am by an organization such as Al Quaeda. Taxes taken out of my pocket to fund these government Wars on This, That, and The-Other-Thing which just happen to make me less free are definitely a threat to my well being. Are you any different?
For liberty,
Fractalzone
I like to keep my Ubuntu Linux box reasonably current, as I am trying to become enough of an expert at Linux to avoid wasting money on Vista just because that is where Windoze is heading and Windoze is the default PC OS these days, sad to say.
That being said, I wonder how soon a savvy computer user should plan on doing an upgrade such as the one from Ubuntu 6.06 to 6.10? As someone who is often paid to make recommendations about Windoze (license) purchases, upgrades, and related application software issues, in addition to all of the other things that one should consider when making a major OS decision, I realize I don't have a good intuitive feel for how long I should wait before upgrading Ubuntu.
With Windoze, a good rule of thumb is to put off major release changes for at least six months...that way the early adopters (read: guinea pigs) get to enjoy all the fresh bugs, security holes and goofy design flaws. By the time an MS Service Pack for the new version has been out for at least two months (and isn't getting ridiculed too much in the tech press/forums), it is usually safe to go ahead with the upgrade (IMHO).
What is a good default timeline for doing Linux upgrades, particularly where new releases of Ubuntu are concerned?
The only vista on my horizon is (the newest version of) Ubuntu,
Fractalzone
"The ability to close and continue sessions later removes a major reason why many people kept their browsers open for long periods of time. [...] So even if some leaks remain, the problems they cause are reduced."
Just because a new feature serves as a workaround that mitigates a known serious flaw in a program does not imply that the problem has been corrected or should be ignored. I hope the Mozilla.org folks pay attention here. There are many millions of us who like Firefox and use it by default...avoiding IE as much as possible.
But the sort of tech savvy folks who will try and then adopt brave new software are often most sensitive to unresolved issues with it, especially if they affect system performance, reliability, or security.
Having used Web browsers since one had to concern one's self with the differences between the various flavors of Mosaic (NCSA, Spyglass, etc.), I'm very comfortable using recent versions of Firefox, Opera, IE, and Netscape...in that order, which happens to reflect my preferences. Netscape used to come before IE. Opera is still very lean and mean. It would be a Good Thing(tm) if a (F)OSS browser (or several) dominated the market for such apps.
It is too bad that Microsoft was not ordered to completely unbundle its Web browser from its operating system. I am sure there would have been a much better IE7 on the market years sooner if MS was motivated to compete in that area, instead of having overwhelming market share by default.
Striving for Stupendous Karma,
Fractalzone
"This week the security firm Authentium found a workaround for Patch Guard, the security feature Microsoft has embedded into the 64-bit version of Windows."
Anything that highlights one of the many flaws in a typical Microsoft (In)security feature should not be considered an a mere exploit or even a workaround, but rather a tremendous public service! When said public service enables the installation of real security features (as opposed to the buggy bloatware which Microsoft Hype(tm) labels a "security feature"), Microsoft should not be allowed to use its monopoly power to silence or eliminate the very worthy competition. Of course the latter goal, getting rid of competitors, not protecting its users, is the real objective of Microsoft's attempted lock down of its 64-bit Windows kernel.
One of the principles of any good security scheme is that it is not dependent on obscurity. If Microsoft was truly confident of its code, it would make the code open source. In reality, Microsoft is quite aware of how lame its code is and knows that even without seeing the source, other people are making an honest living delivering fixes for Microsoft's blunders. Hence, Microsoft tries to exclude the competition by preventing their products from working.
In the area of computer security, perhaps more than anywhere else, Microsoft is working very hard to lower the bar in order to increase its profits at the expense of ordinary users. I, for one, do not trust Microsoft. Just look at the spyware known as Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) notification that Microsft tried to foist upon the unsuspecting masses. Informed people refer to it as Windows Genuine Disadvantage...
I want someone with a vested interest in pointing out the glaring design flaws, numerous bugs, and generally feeble nature of the so-called security features in Microsoft's products to be able to implement effective solutions that protect the users of Microsoft products from malware, crackers, and (hopefully) Microsoft itself.
Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Stupendous Karma,
Fractalzone
And what, pray tell, do you think the policeman's brain is executing when he is deciding whether or not to accost you?
Not an algorithm that you or anyone I've heard or read about could code to work on a von Neumann machine in an ideal world, much less an existing computer in our world.
Humans are terribly good at pattern recognition. Computers are way too mechanistic about such things and tend to suck at them except in very specialized cases -- much progress is being made in this area of research, however.
What a cop on the street does is perform very complex pattern recognition based on many, many factors with can be loosely grouped by input (what his senses detect plus his background body of knowledge -- his working database) and how those inputs change over time. (An enthusiastic but friendly bear hug, for example, doesn't usually usually leave the huggee lying twitching or motionless on the ground, whereas a mugging might well do so.) The cop is basing his reaction on a huge body of stored knowledge about the environment, the appearance of the people in question, current events, the latest orders he has received, etc. A computer has to make do with exactly what it is told to do. Computers are fast, consistent and basically stupid. Most people (including cops) are able to figure out what is going on in a real world situation and act (respond quickly, if need be) somewhat accordingly, at least from their perspective.
Learn assembly language and write a simple app like rudimentary text editor or line-art drawing tool, something that requires most of the basic IO functions. (Then try an application launching menu - yay memory management! :)
.asm code, you understand what is really going on at the machine level. That knowledge will allow you to grow beyond being a VB coder (the modern equivalent of a the old COBOL coder) who can't do much except slap together classes (modules) that some real programmer designed, wrote and tested.
I agree with what you said, but am going to explain why it helps to be good at one (or several) assembly languages.
If you can write I/O routines and convert the sort of algorithms needed to write a text editor into
Thats exactly what I want. I do not want to have any software patch the kernel.
If there is no way for the spyware to patch the kernel I don't need McAfee or Symantec there at all. First thing I do with a new home machine is to strip off the AV software provided by Dell as cramware. Machines run so much faster and more reliably without. Then I turn off AutoRun and hook it up to my internal network which has twin SPI firewalls.
OK. So you aren't a programmer, at last not a gifted systems programmer. Many, many people are...and Microsoft can't seem to hire the best ones, or even mostly good ones, judging by the glaring flaws in Microsoft Buggy Bloatware(tm) such as Vista, Office, and Internet Explorer.
The facts PROVE that Microsoft can't write small and fast code, much less secure, relatively bugfree, and very tight code like the kernel of a modern OS calls for.
Any intelligent, sane person prefers to have important things on his/her computer be repairable or replaceable quickly and easily by more than one vendor, especially if the original manufacturer has a long history of lousy quality control and bad service, as Microsoft does.
I want independent third party experts to be able to exterminate the bugs and patch the security holes that Microsoft blithly includes in its crapware...crapware it would never be able to sell much of without abusing its monopoly over the desktop OS and office suite. What I would really like to see happen is a group get together and come up with a swap-in replacement for MS's 64-bit kernel, and a lot of other broken-by-design parts of Windoze. A lot of companies have been somewhat over very successful in creating drop-in replacements for factory hardware (think Intel CPUs, graphics cards that run circles around the GPUs built into most mobos, improved sound cards, etc.) Software vendors have often improved upon common apps via add-ins or add-ons, some of which definitely alter the way core code in the base app works.
Would you by a car that could only be repaired by a the factory, whenever the company happened to feel in the mood to come up with fixes for its numerous design flaws? That's what Microsoft is trying to do by preventing anyone else from fixing, or heaven forbid, improving upon its crappy code by locking them out of it.
I'm getting pretty sick of all the "Addicted to [insert something here]" articles on Slashdot. As far as I'm concerned they are all dupes of some type or another.
True.
Either it can be defined in terms of real physical science (physics, chemistry, etc.) or it is psychobabble and/or religion...
I can glean more useful info on [random topic] than most people can in several years of college study. Go figure! I strive to grok the 'Net...or at least try make effective use of it.
The 'Net can allow one to focus in, or be very distracted...sometimes both.
(Assuming as quoted all of the parent msg)
:-)
Now I know why I did so well as an engineering student in my Liberal Arts classes: I can spot (excessive) Big Words with "in" meanings and utilize them effectively.
I suspect you are trying to distinguish trendy from significant changes... If you can do it repeatedly, you can get rich.
Words mean what I want them to, when I am lucky or inspired...or too tired to care about the result.
"If every FOSS project behaved as Mozilla does then almost EVERY piece of software in most Linux distros would have to be renamed. Just how does this help with public perception and branding?"
/. fodder. :-)
How would you feel if someone started distributing shitloads of copies of a GUI for *nix systems, based on Gnome, that they called "Gnome" but which was extremely buggy, messed with other critical software on a user's box, phoned home to the people who are behind it and did a core dump of all sorts of information about the user along with anything that looks like it might identify the users of said system? Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention they made sure it could not be easily uninstalled.
Right now, if I get something based on the Linux kernel, I know I can expect the core part of the OS to behave in certain predictable ways. When I decide to use Gnome rather than KDF (for example) I have a good idea of what I will get. What is wrong with that? It works rather well, I'd say.
I've taken a look at the proposed GPLv3 and, at first glance, I don't see where it prohibits anyone who decides ti use such a licensing scheme from keeping control of the brand name of whatever they create and distribute -- it just says that source code must remain open source (free as in free speech). I'm not going to get into a technical legal thread discussion (I still want to be an IP lawyer, but am not one yet).
GPL makes heavy use of terms such as "unmodified program". But, more specifically, the proposed GPLv3 says, "Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software." Since GNU is certainly a major source of great FOSS, I'm using that as a case in point.
Debian wants to modify a program without distinguishing their version from the original. Bad Debian! If they don't like it the way it is and can't live with whatever legal restrictions there are on use of the name "Firefox" to refer to a browser, they should come up with their own name. Hmm, somebody has come up with Iceweasel which is apparently based on the same code that Firefox is. Funny that! Sounds like excellent
When I think of FOSS, I do not assume that all brands of software that have the same roots under an open source license are created equal, nor that I should not be sure to distinguish between them. 0Look at all the flavors (brands) of Linux people can choose from. The only think they have in common is the Linux kernel (thanks, Linus!). At least we know that whoever builds a complete OS around a Linux kernal had enough of a clue to start with a good foundation. Things differ from that point, as most Linux users realize. I want to know whose derivative software I am using.
"All beer is good beer. Some beer is better than others." That describes exactly why brand names matter and why they ought to enjoy protection under the law, expecially when the underlying product can be made and distributed by almost anyone.