Journalists... had their phone records obtained through a method called 'pretexting' to see who, if any, of the HP board members the journalists may have been in contact with.
Its not just 'a method'. It is 'an illegal method'.
That's a good point... MSIE actually wasn't inferior software in itself, either, which was of course another advantage. It also doesn't help that Netscape couldn't handle the pressure of MS bearing down on them while both leading the Web revolution and needing to meet the requirement of turning a consistent profit.
And of course, unlike Netscape, Microsoft didn't need to directly profit from MSIE; to them, it was merely a strategic tool to keep their monopoly on firm ground.
Maybe in hindsight, the candy was addictive and lead to cancer, but at the time, everyone thought it was great.
I must admit, at the time I didn't know any better either. =(
These sorts of "applications" would have been news half a decade ago if Internet Explorer hadn't paralyzed the Web. After all, the idea of remote apps running on thin clients (or brower-type software) has been around since the beginning. Really, the MSIE trick was brilliantly executed... a combination of the "bundling", and also beating the "competition" (Netscape) at the games MS already played best. Once MS had all but destroyed Netscape and the browser market, all it had to do was leave IE completely untouched, preventing anyone from using existing cross-platform standards to extend the Web to its inevitable conclusion: Remote applications that don't require playing nice with Microsoft's "platform", or following the "off the shelf software" rules. Had MS not shoved IE down everyone's throats with such timing and precision, things would be very different today... especially for Web developers, who would be writing fun, crazy stuff right now instead of drudging in ancient, stagnant pools of HTML, browser-compatibility workarounds, and hacky "AJAX" scripting.
All is not lost, of course, because MS got lazy - or just plain dropped the ball - during the time it had bought itself by crushing Web development, what with the Vista delays, and the chair-throwing headache of their inscrutable arch-nemesis Google, et cetera. And lets not forget the heroics of Firefox!
Anyways, people have a good reason to be skeptical about the actual apps in TFA, but keep in mind: These are but the first generation of a breed of software that has waited a long, painful time to become reality.
However, I'm not making the "if you haven't done anything illegal, then you have nothing to fear" argument. Rather, I'm saying "if you run afoul of the law, don't be surprised if that comes back to bite you".
I wouldn't be surprised per se, if a frivolous lawsuit ended up on my doorstep. I don't think anyone with a healthy amount of cynicism would be. You would go, "gee, the decision to download that music / buy those Cuban cigars* / go 20km over the speed limit on that seemingly deserted road, has had some disproportionately unpleasant but not entirely unexpected consequences!"
Likewise, the RIAA cannot do what they do and expect everyone to keep playing by the rules. They should not be surprised either! (But they sure sound surprised. And a little confused...)
Anyhow, I admire the non-participatory response (in fact, I myself don't recall downloading any RIAA music in a good many years, although if I really liked some of their shit I might not hesitate to "steal" it) but I think the desire to disobey is, in this case, an understandable human response, and possibly even an honorable one -- it's certainly more honorable than giving the RIAA more money.
To demand that people refrain from enjoying the music that the RIAA lords over seems a little unreasonable. It reminds me of an example: In the video, an atheist mentions to a Christian that he does not appreciate "In God We Trust" being written on the currency. The Christian's response is (to paraphrase): "If it bother's you, don't live in the USA".
In other words, disobedience is a legitimate form of protest (and please note that I believe violence is not.)
* Actually, I don't think Cubans are illegal in my country, but its just an example and I don't smoke anyways.
Dude, you're supposed to say "frist post!", not make a bunch of intelligent arguments! Anyways, here are some small counterpoints I'd like to mention:
So the RIAA has long-established themselves as a bunch of shameless pricks. So what?
So what? Well, it inclines me to disrespect their outlandish claims to certain intellectual/cultural "properties", for starters. And note that this malice against the RIAA is quite likely felt by a majority of the demographic concerned, not just a fringe few. Because they are indeed shameless pricks, as you said.
Then all of a sudden, magically, the legal issues and artificial (or self-inflicted) fears of injury from a draconian legal system go away. Funny how that works!
So I'm guessing you agree with those illegal wiretaps and so on. After all, if you aren't doing anything illegal, the "draconian" system (getting more draconian as time goes on, it seems) will just "go away" and never effect you! And I guess you believe DRM will never come and bite the legit consumer in the ass, right?
float (and the big brother double) is inaccurate. Its no surprise. A 32-bit Float is but a single simple tool in a programming language. If anyone is surprised by how Floats behave then they are, most likely, inexperienced.
You don't start addressing a problem in software just by assuming Float or Double will magically fill every need. An experienced programmer needs to have a knowledge of how to use, and how not to use, the programming tools at hand. TFA about floating point numbers is very introductory (at the end it mentions that the next article will tell us how to "avoid the problem"... I assume it will go on to cover some basic idioms.) In a way it misses the point: Floating-point rounding is not a "problem". Floats and Doubles always do their job, but you have to know what that job is! The behaviour of floating point numbers should not be a big surprise to a seasoned coder.
For example: You can't use float or double to store the numerical result of a 160-bit SHA-1 hash... you have to use the full 160 bits. (Duh, right?) So, if you use a mere 32 bits (float) or 64 bits (double) to store that number, you are going to sacrifice a lot of accuracy!
And just to play devil's advocate: why does everyone revolt so badly when our work is not being credited? We collectively abuse lot's of other licenses, whether music, software etc.
That's an excellent question. My first impulse is that the difference is that its not a wealthy corporation being disrespected, its one of "the little guys".
My second impulse is that our whole "Teacher, Johnny stole my idea!" attitude these days is actually rather childish. I've whined and complained to website owners about my copyrights being infringed when I was young(er) and stupid(er), and found that nobody was receptive and that taking things further would have made me look like a complete ass.
I'm not saying this applies to all creators, and all situations, but sometimes you just need to "suck it up".
I was intrigued to see that Roblimo has posted this video to YouTube, after he saw the astroturf video in the Slashdot submission bin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y08z9QMe0o
Google wasn't first to market with Web search, or online maps, either. They just managed to do it better.
Btw, thanks for the link! Looks interesting. =)
Once the music industry finally pulls its finger out...
...the artists and content creators will have already have routed around them. They won't willingly give up until their heavy-handed, control-freak tactics are no longer profitable.
Is it just me, or does Google seem to be overextending itself?
On the contrary, they stick fairly close to their core competency compared to certain other tech companies. Plus, I'd hardly call what they're doing "overextending" when they have a $100 billion market capitalization.
That they deny being enticed by the idea of selling music online is a good sign IMO, it means they don't need to try to grab a piece of every pie that has anything to do with the word "Internet".
I'm surprised anyone would think Google would want to be a music store. It doesn't really fit their methods and style. Google is not a retailer, they do not take content from a commercial third-party and distribute it, with markup, to consumers. This is nothing like how they currently make their billions.
I have no doubt the minds at Google have thought of how to use music content, but I suspect one of the reasons they aren't jumping in right away is because, to put it lightly, the RIAA folks are not pleasant people to share a market with.
In my estimation, if Google were to focus on music content, it might be something like Google Video, only taken to the next level somehow; Perhaps it would be an advanced form of Internet radio, where each user gets a personalized stream of the music they like, and Google uses their context and marketing technology to make a tidy profit off of the millions of attentive ears. And of course, the music content they included would have to be free...
"so it remains to be seen whether the Domesday Book online will be more or less fragile than the parchment originals."
More fragile. The parchment, if properly stored in a cool, dark, dry place (which is easy to do and requires very little technology - almost none, actually) will last another 1000 years. I seriously doubt ANYTHING online will be around in 1000 years. I doubt we will have electricity in 1000 years.
Or the parchment could be destroyed in a fire tomorrow, while the digital version gets spread over a P2P network, to be replicated across the globe for as long as mankind has the requisite technology to view and reproduce the document in whatever form it is stored.
I think the argument over which medium keeps information (be it writing, photos, music, etc) accessible the longest depends on a lot of probabilities. What is the likelihood that a global catastrophe (ie. DOOMSDAY, har har) will take the world permanently offline, erasing the information? Conversely, what is the likelihood that dead-tree copies will get destroyed by accident or the elements?
Note that sealing a paper document somewhere hard to access defeats the purpose somewhat, because it can't be accessed when desired, and when it does get uncovered in the future it may not be recognized and valued by whoever finds it.
Linux, and most of the other software distros bundle with it, is all licensed under the GPL, and is generally licensed as such for a reason: the developers are dedicated to Free Software. The question of proprietary kernel drivers, and many other issues, are consistently decided in favour of continuing to strictly adhere to GNU/Free Software standards.
On the other side of the fence, proprietary software is Closed Source in order to maximize revenue. Much of it will stay closed forever, due to legal red-tape, patent skullduggery, shareholder interests, and good old fashioned greed.
And then, most importantly (believe it or not) we have the Users. Sometimes they get what they want, either thanks to a commercial development, or the teeming F/OSS community.
Sometimes, however, they don't get what they want -- they get shafted -- thanks to the interests of whomever controls the copyrights of the technology at issue.
While I am fascinated by genuine scientific research into such effects, and interested by the insights into cellular and genetic mechanics described in the article, I shiver to think of how news like this might reverberate across the large communities of pseudo-science loons and snake-oil salesmen that lurk in the dark corners of the Internet.
" Electr1city curez, as seen |n New Scienti5t m4gazine. G3t electr|cal d3vice, cur3s all d1sease including ere
Zap.
Once malicious code enters the "perimeter", so to speak, AV software is a rather weak stopgap measure. Software design flaws that result in holes can seldom be fixed by adding more surface area, it only becomes a matter of time before the attacker figures out the next step. The AV software companies know that most of their customers have no idea how computer security works. Antivirus provides some shallow peace of mind for Joe Average. It is not a very serious security measure and it should not be relied on as thus.
I'm sure other posters will provide the real answers to security, like limited user access, a good firewall, not running intrusted code, and using a web browser that isn't garbage.
I went for 3 years using just these precautions, but used no antivirus whatsoever. I never become infected by a single thing. I only recently grabbed ClamWin, a port of ClamAV, for my Windoze box because I wanted to scan a program I got via P2P.
Slashdot Mirror
From the Wikipedia article:
And of course, unlike Netscape, Microsoft didn't need to directly profit from MSIE; to them, it was merely a strategic tool to keep their monopoly on firm ground.
I must admit, at the time I didn't know any better either. =(
These sorts of "applications" would have been news half a decade ago if Internet Explorer hadn't paralyzed the Web. After all, the idea of remote apps running on thin clients (or brower-type software) has been around since the beginning. Really, the MSIE trick was brilliantly executed... a combination of the "bundling", and also beating the "competition" (Netscape) at the games MS already played best. Once MS had all but destroyed Netscape and the browser market, all it had to do was leave IE completely untouched, preventing anyone from using existing cross-platform standards to extend the Web to its inevitable conclusion: Remote applications that don't require playing nice with Microsoft's "platform", or following the "off the shelf software" rules. Had MS not shoved IE down everyone's throats with such timing and precision, things would be very different today... especially for Web developers, who would be writing fun, crazy stuff right now instead of drudging in ancient, stagnant pools of HTML, browser-compatibility workarounds, and hacky "AJAX" scripting.
All is not lost, of course, because MS got lazy - or just plain dropped the ball - during the time it had bought itself by crushing Web development, what with the Vista delays, and the chair-throwing headache of their inscrutable arch-nemesis Google, et cetera. And lets not forget the heroics of Firefox!
Anyways, people have a good reason to be skeptical about the actual apps in TFA, but keep in mind: These are but the first generation of a breed of software that has waited a long, painful time to become reality.
How much is that in Libraries of Congress?
I wouldn't be surprised per se, if a frivolous lawsuit ended up on my doorstep. I don't think anyone with a healthy amount of cynicism would be. You would go, "gee, the decision to download that music / buy those Cuban cigars* / go 20km over the speed limit on that seemingly deserted road, has had some disproportionately unpleasant but not entirely unexpected consequences!"
Likewise, the RIAA cannot do what they do and expect everyone to keep playing by the rules. They should not be surprised either! (But they sure sound surprised. And a little confused...)
Anyhow, I admire the non-participatory response (in fact, I myself don't recall downloading any RIAA music in a good many years, although if I really liked some of their shit I might not hesitate to "steal" it) but I think the desire to disobey is, in this case, an understandable human response, and possibly even an honorable one -- it's certainly more honorable than giving the RIAA more money.
To demand that people refrain from enjoying the music that the RIAA lords over seems a little unreasonable. It reminds me of an example: In the video, an atheist mentions to a Christian that he does not appreciate "In God We Trust" being written on the currency. The Christian's response is (to paraphrase): "If it bother's you, don't live in the USA".
In other words, disobedience is a legitimate form of protest (and please note that I believe violence is not.)
* Actually, I don't think Cubans are illegal in my country, but its just an example and I don't smoke anyways.
So what? Well, it inclines me to disrespect their outlandish claims to certain intellectual/cultural "properties", for starters. And note that this malice against the RIAA is quite likely felt by a majority of the demographic concerned, not just a fringe few. Because they are indeed shameless pricks, as you said.
So I'm guessing you agree with those illegal wiretaps and so on. After all, if you aren't doing anything illegal, the "draconian" system (getting more draconian as time goes on, it seems) will just "go away" and never effect you! And I guess you believe DRM will never come and bite the legit consumer in the ass, right?
float (and the big brother double) is inaccurate. Its no surprise. A 32-bit Float is but a single simple tool in a programming language. If anyone is surprised by how Floats behave then they are, most likely, inexperienced.
You don't start addressing a problem in software just by assuming Float or Double will magically fill every need. An experienced programmer needs to have a knowledge of how to use, and how not to use, the programming tools at hand. TFA about floating point numbers is very introductory (at the end it mentions that the next article will tell us how to "avoid the problem"... I assume it will go on to cover some basic idioms.) In a way it misses the point: Floating-point rounding is not a "problem". Floats and Doubles always do their job, but you have to know what that job is! The behaviour of floating point numbers should not be a big surprise to a seasoned coder.
For example: You can't use float or double to store the numerical result of a 160-bit SHA-1 hash... you have to use the full 160 bits. (Duh, right?) So, if you use a mere 32 bits (float) or 64 bits (double) to store that number, you are going to sacrifice a lot of accuracy!
are you pondering what I'm pondering?
I think so, Brain! NERSC! POIT!
That's an excellent question. My first impulse is that the difference is that its not a wealthy corporation being disrespected, its one of "the little guys".
My second impulse is that our whole "Teacher, Johnny stole my idea!" attitude these days is actually rather childish. I've whined and complained to website owners about my copyrights being infringed when I was young(er) and stupid(er), and found that nobody was receptive and that taking things further would have made me look like a complete ass.
I'm not saying this applies to all creators, and all situations, but sometimes you just need to "suck it up".
If you submit this search on YouTube, you'll also see the following counter-submissions:
Re: Al Gore's Penguin Army
Al Gore's Penguin Army - Propaganda
'Al Gore's Penguin Army' Misuses Linux Mascot!
Yes, that's the Linux Penguin.
I was intrigued to see that Roblimo has posted this video to YouTube, after he saw the astroturf video in the Slashdot submission bin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y08z9QMe0o
Google wasn't first to market with Web search, or online maps, either. They just managed to do it better.
Btw, thanks for the link! Looks interesting. =)
On the contrary, they stick fairly close to their core competency compared to certain other tech companies. Plus, I'd hardly call what they're doing "overextending" when they have a $100 billion market capitalization.
That they deny being enticed by the idea of selling music online is a good sign IMO, it means they don't need to try to grab a piece of every pie that has anything to do with the word "Internet".
That's called selling advertising (to commercial customers), it has nothing to do with selling content to consumers, retail-style.
I'm surprised anyone would think Google would want to be a music store. It doesn't really fit their methods and style. Google is not a retailer, they do not take content from a commercial third-party and distribute it, with markup, to consumers. This is nothing like how they currently make their billions.
I have no doubt the minds at Google have thought of how to use music content, but I suspect one of the reasons they aren't jumping in right away is because, to put it lightly, the RIAA folks are not pleasant people to share a market with.
In my estimation, if Google were to focus on music content, it might be something like Google Video, only taken to the next level somehow; Perhaps it would be an advanced form of Internet radio, where each user gets a personalized stream of the music they like, and Google uses their context and marketing technology to make a tidy profit off of the millions of attentive ears. And of course, the music content they included would have to be free...
I think the argument over which medium keeps information (be it writing, photos, music, etc) accessible the longest depends on a lot of probabilities. What is the likelihood that a global catastrophe (ie. DOOMSDAY, har har) will take the world permanently offline, erasing the information? Conversely, what is the likelihood that dead-tree copies will get destroyed by accident or the elements?
Note that sealing a paper document somewhere hard to access defeats the purpose somewhat, because it can't be accessed when desired, and when it does get uncovered in the future it may not be recognized and valued by whoever finds it.
Can someone please mod the parent "+1, He Was Only Kidding"?
In seriousness, I actually found TFA interesting. Its not actually boring.
Note to self: The Internet cannot transmit innocent facetiousness.
"The Doomsday Book"!!
...oh. Domesday. Some old British survey book? Bo-ring.
I vote this the most disappointing article ever.
Dear Slashdotters,
Recommend you avoid modding up contrived-sounding unsubstantiated rumours posted by an AC.
Love,
Null Nihils
Its really quite simple.
Linux, and most of the other software distros bundle with it, is all licensed under the GPL, and is generally licensed as such for a reason: the developers are dedicated to Free Software. The question of proprietary kernel drivers, and many other issues, are consistently decided in favour of continuing to strictly adhere to GNU/Free Software standards.
On the other side of the fence, proprietary software is Closed Source in order to maximize revenue. Much of it will stay closed forever, due to legal red-tape, patent skullduggery, shareholder interests, and good old fashioned greed.
And then, most importantly (believe it or not) we have the Users. Sometimes they get what they want, either thanks to a commercial development, or the teeming F/OSS community.
Sometimes, however, they don't get what they want -- they get shafted -- thanks to the interests of whomever controls the copyrights of the technology at issue.
Darn! There was more to that post, but slashcode borked it.
No amount of electricity will heal this wound. =(
While I am fascinated by genuine scientific research into such effects, and interested by the insights into cellular and genetic mechanics described in the article, I shiver to think of how news like this might reverberate across the large communities of pseudo-science loons and snake-oil salesmen that lurk in the dark corners of the Internet.
" Electr1city curez, as seen |n New Scienti5t m4gazine. G3t electr|cal d3vice, cur3s all d1sease including ere
Zap.
Moore's law will be able to keep marching on.
Hopefully these tricks, and others, will be commercially available by the time it becomes impractical to cram any more cores on a single chip.
Once malicious code enters the "perimeter", so to speak, AV software is a rather weak stopgap measure. Software design flaws that result in holes can seldom be fixed by adding more surface area, it only becomes a matter of time before the attacker figures out the next step. The AV software companies know that most of their customers have no idea how computer security works. Antivirus provides some shallow peace of mind for Joe Average. It is not a very serious security measure and it should not be relied on as thus.
I'm sure other posters will provide the real answers to security, like limited user access, a good firewall, not running intrusted code, and using a web browser that isn't garbage.
I went for 3 years using just these precautions, but used no antivirus whatsoever. I never become infected by a single thing. I only recently grabbed ClamWin, a port of ClamAV, for my Windoze box because I wanted to scan a program I got via P2P.