Assuming for a moment that somehow such a law were implemented and enforced (which seems far from probable), it would certainly lead to more draconian policing and punishment for crackers.
Software companies, held liable for the security of their products, would certainly apply as much pressure as possible to punish crackers. Since so many crackers come from outside the United States, that could really lead to interesting international law enforcement and judicial scenarios - not necessarily pretty ones, either.
You bring up a really good point. As the owner of a small business, I can tell you that there's more to it than just making money or defeating your competitors or raising the value of your stock.
Some people are in it just to make money, or snub their noses at everyone who said they'd never make it, or whatever. But Jobs seems to be truly passionate about coming out with exciting, innovative products.
but that doesn't mean he wants to sell commodity products. Because BMW doesn't target 7-Eleven employees doesn't mean that their executives aren't aware of American automobile buying habits. It means that they've chosen to target a different audience.
Apple, like any large corporation, has a culture of its own. The culture at Apple favors certain things. It places a value on aesthetics and on how people interact with their computers. It places a value on taking risks in order to push new technologies (some of which Apple invented, like Firewire and others, like USB that it didn't). It places a higher value on originality and elegance than on following established norms.
A company with such a culture will never rule the world. It will never defeat Microsoft in the marketplace. It will never unseat Dell. But it doesn't have to. In order to grow and prosper, Apple just has to keep its customer base happy. Its customer base is not Ma and Pa Gateway.
For better or for worse, the people who like Apple products tend to actually enjoy using their computers. They don't usually care about whether they can play any one of 10,000 available PC games. They simply want a computer that allows them to accomplish things and to have fun while doing those things.
As long as Apple can keep providing products that innovate in favor of the user, they'll do just fine, and the rest of the industry will continue to use them as an R & D lab.
This will be great! Maybe I can get rid of PacBell now, and switch over to AOL/TW. They're SURE to give me better service than the consumer-oriented folks at PacBell.
I'm so happy! Yay! Conglomerates sure do add value to society!
Yeah, it's not exactly clear. Whether they call it the SuperG4 or the G4+ or the G5, the next chip we see in Macs should be substantially faster (let's hope so, after all this waiting!).
Architosh has some interesting info about the PowerPC roadmap.
Reason for PowerMac and iMac processor situation
on
New iMac Announced
·
· Score: 2, Redundant
The new, faster G4s (or call them G5s - same chip, regardless) have been in the pipeline for some time. My guess is Jobs wanted to put the new iMacs front and center right now. In three or four months, we'll likely hear about the new processors being placed in updated desktop machines.
I know you didn't mean it as flamebait. I agree that the statement was offensive. Hell, as users of Open Source software in particular, we should all be aware of how many creative and ground-breaking software products come from outside the U.S.
Wait! You missed several key bits of information in your critique of RMS, Steve Jobs, "Linus Torvaledse", the Apple "MS-DOS" operating system, "executive code" and the rest of the "illegal Open Source movement."
First, remember that RMS was able to wreak havoc on the computing world only because he is in league with the aliens who abducted Elvis and assassinated JFK.
Do us all a favor. If you're gonna troll, at least do it with some taste. Spell names correctly. Try to make the troll have at least some sort of acquaintance with actual history. And for the love of God, don't quote Metallica in a discussion about technology.
"Leaked" plans keep competitors nervous
on
Xbox Sequel Rumors
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Microsoft has a long history of leaking or announcing technology long before it actually is developed. As the 800-lb. gorilla, this tactic works quite well, because it makes the competition less likely to embark on technologies that might compete directly with the "upcoming" Microsoft product.
I'm not saying that Microsoft deliberately leaked information about HomeStation, or that they're not well on their way to making it a reality, but early announcement is a clever way of placing barriers to entry in front of their competitors. If you're trying to line up partners for deployment of your new all-in-one home gizmo, who's going to work with you if they know Microsoft is coming out with their own gizmo "any time now"?
The big players in the hosting market have tried this already - and have failed. Exodus and NaviSite both have very physically secure facilities, but these types of setups cost a lot of money to build and maintain.
If you can't convince clients that it's worth the extra money to have all of this physical security, you can't make money.
In the midst of a global slowdown, are companies going to want to spend that extra money, rather than investing in distributed data warehousing approaches?
As you mentioned, it's a commodity market. Dell is simply the most efficient producer and distributor of what has become a commodity. Desktop personal computers have matured to the point that huge profit margins have vanished. For everyone but Apple, the OS is controlled by Microsoft, so it's difficult to innovate on desktop hardware without closely coordinating with Microsoft.
The software rules the hardware. IBM is in a much better position than other players like Gateway (ouch!) to get out of boxmaking, because they've always been a service company. Fighting for thin margins against a company (Dell) that is optimized towards doing one thing (distributing custom computers using just in time inventory controls) is a fool's errand, and IBM is smart enough to know that.
If I only had access to email from inside the United States, web sites that conformed to a narrow ideological range (ACLU, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, NPR), could that really be considered use of the Internet?
Perhaps a better way of saying it would be, "The Chinese will account for the highest percentage of users of Internet technology".
Take away unimpeded access to content, and all you have is a giant socio-capitalist WAN.
* watching TV
* masturbating
* sitting around thinking of ways to avoid doing something
* bowling
* watching bowling on TV
* reading Danielle Steel novels
ad nauseum...
People will "waste time" because humans can't work 24/7. We're primates, for Chrissakes.. have you ever seen primates in a zoo? "Wasting time" is all they do!
Video games are just a way of wasting the same amount of time in a different way.
Unfortunately for the Russian Navy, excellent ship designs don't equal mission readiness. Look at the ill-fated Kursk, for example. It was the pride of the Russian submarine fleet, designed with a double-hull, an escape pod, and as much underwater stealth technology as they could cram into it.
The Kursk sank on a training mission, and according to a revealing and meticulously researched print article in the October, 2001 issue of Men's Journal, the two primary reasons for the tragic death of the entire crew were: 1) faulty cheaper torpedoes, and 2) a Russian fleet chain of command that put covering their asses before the welfare of their sailors.
The Russian Navy is in dire straits. Submarine crews spend much of their time foraging for food. Their morale is terrible, training quality is low, and discipline is not what it should be.
Having the best equipment in the world is no substitute for having well-trained, motivated, sailors. Until the Russians can completely overhaul their Cold War-oriented, top-heavy, political-appointee command structure, and start spending money on training and sailors rather than on huge new weapons programs, they'll continue their rapid descent into military irrelevance.
Further reading about the Russian military from sources around the world:
Oversight of Microsoft has failed before, primarily because by the time anyone realized that Microsoft had overstepped its bounds, it was too late to effectively punish them without creating more problems.
How do you think the transition from watching what Microsoft is doing to implementing punishments for bad behavior might actually work?
US foreign policy is full of examples such as those mentioned in the Viceland.com page you link to. Mistakes were definitely made.
But the piece betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how foreign policy is shaped. First, the world we live in is not black and white. More often than not, we're dealing with international problems that have no clean, clear answer.
For example, it's easy to dismiss American Cold War fears of Castro's Cuba. But then, he did ask for and receive assistance from the Soviets in the form of missiles, didn't he?
The Vietnam War was by almost anyone's estimation, a wasteful, stupid blunder of immense proportions. But let us not forget that a large part of the reason the US got involved in the first place was that the Soviets were making advances of one sort or another on almost every continent. They had what the US perceived to be a client state in North Vietnam.
The Soviet Union espoused a form of government that viewed the destruction of capitalism and the bourgeous democracies as a primary goal.
US foreign policy was dictated by the overarching threat of communism. Sure, now it seems a joke - it collapsed from the inside, from its own weight. But just as sabre-rattling from the West scared the Soviets, the US was scared by Soviet threats as well.
Yes, there are other factors at work. Yes, the Soviet Union is now dead. Yes, mistakes are still being made in US foreign policy.
But the September 11th attacks didn't happen because Bin Laden was pissed off about the Vietnam War, or about the Bay of Pigs, or our meddling with Iran. Bin Laden was pissed off because we supported Saudi Arabia, a country whose rulers he sees as morally corrupt.
Our reasons for supporting the House of Saud over the years primarily stemmed from our desire to maintain stability in the Middle East. During the Cold War, the Soviets were trying as hard as possible to exert influence there, in hopes that by choking off the supply of oil to the West, Europe and the United States would become vulnerable.
We utilized balance of power politics, the same thing that Metternich used in Europe to avoid a major war for years. It's not policy driven by right and wrong. It's policy driven by expediency. It's not perfect. Hell, it's barely adequate much of the time.
But I'd much rather trust foreign policy to people who are thinking of overall balances and stability and peace, than people who would rather persue blindly optimistic policy based on idealism.
The track record of idealistic US foreign policy is pretty dismal. Woodrow Wilson got us involved in WWI too late, because he was loathe to go to war. Then his idealism failed at the Treaty of Versailles, because he went along with France's desire to humiliate and punish Germany.
Jimmy Carter was so infatuated with the idea of working with the Soviets for detente, that when they surprised him by invading Afghanistan, he launched a massive arms buildup (yes, Reagan didn't start it - Carter did) and sent the CIA in to support the mujahedin.
So while it's easy to throw rocks, and it's easy to look at history in retrospect, dealing with the day-to-day matters of international relations is a mite trickier.
The UN won't save you from terrorists. Germany won't work to protect American jobs by keeping the price of oil stable. Japan isn't going to keep India and Pakistan from nuking each other. It's a big, complicated, dangerous world out there.
Finally, the argument that Americans are being misled by the government about US foreign policy is a load of crap. American foreign policy aims are well known to anyone who takes the time to read about them.
Foreign policy is a complex topic, and you can't get a grip on it by watching E! Entertainment News. Less than half the eligible population of the US votes. News shows that stick to news get lower ratings than those that pander to the lowest common denominator.
Americans largely don't want to think about international affairs. That is a far more serious problem for the US in the long run than any specific policy blunders.
It's true! Trackspace is dead on. It's funny, but true. Why do people watch the E! or read InStyle? Because people want celebrities.
Sure, get on your high horse and say, "I don't need celebrities. I don't care if my movie stars are real humans or not!" But most people like celebrities. That's why movies are made the way they are these days.
Big studios don't take chances any more. They bet on horses that have won in the past. Some nobody from nowhere comes to them with a script that's great. Do they bank on that script, then fill it with actors? No! They find one or two or three big-name actors with star appeal, and get them in on the project. Then they screw with the script until it makes everyone's egos happy. Then they shoot the film, market the thing, and we all go and see it.
Studios do this because the know that there are millions of people infatuated with Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts, et. al.. They're not infatuated with the characters these people play - they're infatuated with the actors themselves.
As long as there are people out there who made it out of Bumfuq, ND and became big-name movie stars, with the strange and unreal trials and tribulations that movie stars have, there will be celebrity fans.
Those celebrity fans dictate the movie business in every major movie-producing country. Without human star actors, there's no movie industry.
"This is a significant blow to the notion that technology will forge a more open world. And it might not be all that distant a threat. We have plenty of zealots and fanatics right here..."
Hate to say it, Jon, but technology is value-neutral. It has no master plan. It has no ideology. It is created, used, adapted, modified, deified, and villified by humans.
Perhaps some of those humans place too little credence in the democratizing powers of technology, perhaps some place too much;-).
Slashdot Mirror
to stop cheating, will GT bust them for plagiarism? ;-)
Heh heh.. that's an interesting thought. It would be sort of funny if all crackers instantly became the servants of humanity at the stroke of a pen.
Software companies, held liable for the security of their products, would certainly apply as much pressure as possible to punish crackers. Since so many crackers come from outside the United States, that could really lead to interesting international law enforcement and judicial scenarios - not necessarily pretty ones, either.
Some people are in it just to make money, or snub their noses at everyone who said they'd never make it, or whatever. But Jobs seems to be truly passionate about coming out with exciting, innovative products.
Apple, like any large corporation, has a culture of its own. The culture at Apple favors certain things. It places a value on aesthetics and on how people interact with their computers. It places a value on taking risks in order to push new technologies (some of which Apple invented, like Firewire and others, like USB that it didn't). It places a higher value on originality and elegance than on following established norms.
A company with such a culture will never rule the world. It will never defeat Microsoft in the marketplace. It will never unseat Dell. But it doesn't have to. In order to grow and prosper, Apple just has to keep its customer base happy. Its customer base is not Ma and Pa Gateway.
For better or for worse, the people who like Apple products tend to actually enjoy using their computers. They don't usually care about whether they can play any one of 10,000 available PC games. They simply want a computer that allows them to accomplish things and to have fun while doing those things.
As long as Apple can keep providing products that innovate in favor of the user, they'll do just fine, and the rest of the industry will continue to use them as an R & D lab.
I'm so happy! Yay! Conglomerates sure do add value to society!
he just doesn't like the dangers involved in automotive travel, and chose to express it quasi-mathematically
Architosh has some interesting info about the PowerPC roadmap.
Racist: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Nationalist: Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
First, remember that RMS was able to wreak havoc on the computing world only because he is in league with the aliens who abducted Elvis and assassinated JFK.
He is also a known cattle mutilator and evil character.
Do us all a favor. If you're gonna troll, at least do it with some taste. Spell names correctly. Try to make the troll have at least some sort of acquaintance with actual history. And for the love of God, don't quote Metallica in a discussion about technology.
I'm not saying that Microsoft deliberately leaked information about HomeStation, or that they're not well on their way to making it a reality, but early announcement is a clever way of placing barriers to entry in front of their competitors. If you're trying to line up partners for deployment of your new all-in-one home gizmo, who's going to work with you if they know Microsoft is coming out with their own gizmo "any time now"?
If you can't convince clients that it's worth the extra money to have all of this physical security, you can't make money.
In the midst of a global slowdown, are companies going to want to spend that extra money, rather than investing in distributed data warehousing approaches?
The software rules the hardware. IBM is in a much better position than other players like Gateway (ouch!) to get out of boxmaking, because they've always been a service company. Fighting for thin margins against a company (Dell) that is optimized towards doing one thing (distributing custom computers using just in time inventory controls) is a fool's errand, and IBM is smart enough to know that.
Perhaps a better way of saying it would be, "The Chinese will account for the highest percentage of users of Internet technology".
Take away unimpeded access to content, and all you have is a giant socio-capitalist WAN.
* watching TV
* masturbating
* sitting around thinking of ways to avoid doing something
* bowling
* watching bowling on TV
* reading Danielle Steel novels
ad nauseum...
People will "waste time" because humans can't work 24/7. We're primates, for Chrissakes.. have you ever seen primates in a zoo? "Wasting time" is all they do!
Video games are just a way of wasting the same amount of time in a different way.
The Kursk sank on a training mission, and according to a revealing and meticulously researched print article in the October, 2001 issue of Men's Journal, the two primary reasons for the tragic death of the entire crew were: 1) faulty cheaper torpedoes, and 2) a Russian fleet chain of command that put covering their asses before the welfare of their sailors.
The Russian Navy is in dire straits. Submarine crews spend much of their time foraging for food. Their morale is terrible, training quality is low, and discipline is not what it should be.
Having the best equipment in the world is no substitute for having well-trained, motivated, sailors. Until the Russians can completely overhaul their Cold War-oriented, top-heavy, political-appointee command structure, and start spending money on training and sailors rather than on huge new weapons programs, they'll continue their rapid descent into military irrelevance.
Further reading about the Russian military from sources around the world:
BBC
India
Russia
How do you think the transition from watching what Microsoft is doing to implementing punishments for bad behavior might actually work?
But the piece betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how foreign policy is shaped. First, the world we live in is not black and white. More often than not, we're dealing with international problems that have no clean, clear answer.
For example, it's easy to dismiss American Cold War fears of Castro's Cuba. But then, he did ask for and receive assistance from the Soviets in the form of missiles, didn't he?
The Vietnam War was by almost anyone's estimation, a wasteful, stupid blunder of immense proportions. But let us not forget that a large part of the reason the US got involved in the first place was that the Soviets were making advances of one sort or another on almost every continent. They had what the US perceived to be a client state in North Vietnam.
The Soviet Union espoused a form of government that viewed the destruction of capitalism and the bourgeous democracies as a primary goal.
US foreign policy was dictated by the overarching threat of communism. Sure, now it seems a joke - it collapsed from the inside, from its own weight. But just as sabre-rattling from the West scared the Soviets, the US was scared by Soviet threats as well.
Yes, there are other factors at work. Yes, the Soviet Union is now dead. Yes, mistakes are still being made in US foreign policy.
But the September 11th attacks didn't happen because Bin Laden was pissed off about the Vietnam War, or about the Bay of Pigs, or our meddling with Iran. Bin Laden was pissed off because we supported Saudi Arabia, a country whose rulers he sees as morally corrupt.
Our reasons for supporting the House of Saud over the years primarily stemmed from our desire to maintain stability in the Middle East. During the Cold War, the Soviets were trying as hard as possible to exert influence there, in hopes that by choking off the supply of oil to the West, Europe and the United States would become vulnerable.
We utilized balance of power politics, the same thing that Metternich used in Europe to avoid a major war for years. It's not policy driven by right and wrong. It's policy driven by expediency. It's not perfect. Hell, it's barely adequate much of the time.
But I'd much rather trust foreign policy to people who are thinking of overall balances and stability and peace, than people who would rather persue blindly optimistic policy based on idealism.
The track record of idealistic US foreign policy is pretty dismal. Woodrow Wilson got us involved in WWI too late, because he was loathe to go to war. Then his idealism failed at the Treaty of Versailles, because he went along with France's desire to humiliate and punish Germany.
Jimmy Carter was so infatuated with the idea of working with the Soviets for detente, that when they surprised him by invading Afghanistan, he launched a massive arms buildup (yes, Reagan didn't start it - Carter did) and sent the CIA in to support the mujahedin.
So while it's easy to throw rocks, and it's easy to look at history in retrospect, dealing with the day-to-day matters of international relations is a mite trickier.
The UN won't save you from terrorists. Germany won't work to protect American jobs by keeping the price of oil stable. Japan isn't going to keep India and Pakistan from nuking each other. It's a big, complicated, dangerous world out there.
Finally, the argument that Americans are being misled by the government about US foreign policy is a load of crap. American foreign policy aims are well known to anyone who takes the time to read about them.
Foreign policy is a complex topic, and you can't get a grip on it by watching E! Entertainment News. Less than half the eligible population of the US votes. News shows that stick to news get lower ratings than those that pander to the lowest common denominator.
Americans largely don't want to think about international affairs. That is a far more serious problem for the US in the long run than any specific policy blunders.
Sure, get on your high horse and say, "I don't need celebrities. I don't care if my movie stars are real humans or not!" But most people like celebrities. That's why movies are made the way they are these days.
Big studios don't take chances any more. They bet on horses that have won in the past. Some nobody from nowhere comes to them with a script that's great. Do they bank on that script, then fill it with actors? No! They find one or two or three big-name actors with star appeal, and get them in on the project. Then they screw with the script until it makes everyone's egos happy. Then they shoot the film, market the thing, and we all go and see it.
Studios do this because the know that there are millions of people infatuated with Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts, et. al.. They're not infatuated with the characters these people play - they're infatuated with the actors themselves.
As long as there are people out there who made it out of Bumfuq, ND and became big-name movie stars, with the strange and unreal trials and tribulations that movie stars have, there will be celebrity fans.
Those celebrity fans dictate the movie business in every major movie-producing country. Without human star actors, there's no movie industry.
Hate to say it, Jon, but technology is value-neutral. It has no master plan. It has no ideology. It is created, used, adapted, modified, deified, and villified by humans.
Perhaps some of those humans place too little credence in the democratizing powers of technology, perhaps some place too much ;-).