Google is spending a ton of money working on exactly that.
Yeah - but I was thinking of something beyond keyword or proximity search. Something, er, semantic. But actually semantic, not like the semantic web. Something that could spot correlations across complex documents or organize the information beyond a top 10 list of hits or actually answer questions. While useful, keyword search hardly provides the rich semantic environment needed to organize the world's information.
Sure - life would be so much easier if everyone spoke the same language and all businesses worked together for a common good. And everyone used Linux and open standards and shared data. But, then again, any structured approach would work well in this environment or in other closed communities where everyone agrees on XML and API standards already.
But give me something to work with the vast amounts of unstructured information out there - not just the generic header information surrounding the really interesting stuff. I'm just hoping that Web 3.0 focuses more on this area to support a real information revolution rather than just over-formatting the already semi-structured pieces of data that we already know about.
Ok, I get that/. readers hate Microsoft, but this is really a story about doing business in China more than how evil Microsoft is. The article really stresses how much Microsoft was hated when they tried the strong-arm tactics of selling (even more than in America) until they invested heavily in the country and opened a research center to change their image.
That really applies to all businesses trying to do business in China - particularly sales. It's actually quite an interesting story of business culture clashes and a good lesson on how standard US and EU business practices don't really work well in China.
I doubt most folks would disagree with that for basic word processing, power computer users (which includes 98% of/. readers) often prefer memorizing tons of secret key strokes over using the mouse. Duh. But for folks that don't live and breath these apps, mouse-driven menus at least let folks easily access EVERYTHING.
The issue is that it's inefficient to switch between multiple input devices so one should design GUIs that allow users to go with the flow rather than forcing them to constantly switch in the middle of their workflow. But the article obsesses with trying to argue that the keyboard is far superior to the mouse rather than saying the keyboard is better for applications that focus on text entry.
Try creating Powerpoint slides without a mouse - or navigating the web - or playing games - or anything except for text-entry centric apps. It's a ridiculous premise to argue that the mouse is obsolete.
Jeez - the link seems like a pure political rant against SIRA. While it's an important issue, I would've hoped slashdot might have linked to a more intelligent article that actually discusses the bill.
Here's a much more thorough discussion of the bill:
This article counters a number of the rants on the extremely biased link slashdot provided.
For instance, the slashdot political link claims "It would require all incidental copies of music to be licensed separately from the originating copy. Even copies of songs that are cached in your computer's memory..."
However, the link above specifically says: "the proposed blanket license covers all intermediate copies (e.g., server, cache and buffer copies) necessary to facilitate the digital delivery of music and applies to streaming and limited downloads."
I'm not arguing that it's a good bill (and I'm pretty sure it sucks), only that the initial link is so blatantly political that it's hardly an objective source for ANY information and is easily proven wrong by a casual read at the facts. Shame on you slashdot for posting such biased and political crap soley to incite a flamewar.
Black Apple sounds so much cooler than that sissy berry crap. Besides, think of all those cool goth kids that would want one. Or maybe MacBlack - you could explode into a whole new ethnic community...
What's with all the rants about renting software. That's hardly the point of the article or service-based software.
Service based software has many revenue streams and powerful advantages. First, it'd be great to have a virtual desktop that followed me whereever I logged into. Not only do my files follow, but I can login to a kiosk and actually edit my Powerpoint before a presentation (without the danger of locally saving it). This is a great model (with enough bandwidth) that facilitates collaboration and mobility.
Second, many companies are already paying through the nose for a similar model. We pay hundreds of dollars/year/user for PC service support with software. Many folks only occassionally use the MS apps, but we have to buy licenses for each PC. It would be FAR cheaper if we could centrally host the applications and pay by usage. And this would also enable us to automatically backup files and allow users to access programs from home. Users often lose data when their desktop crashes. No more with service-based software!
Third, look at the Turbo-Tax model. It's $70 for the desktop version (PLUS electronic filing fees) and $20 online with FREE electronic filing. The service based model would be similar. Pay $500 for MS Office or $40/year to use/access the same thing. It's likely to be MUCH cheaper.
Fourth, they'll also license it to folks like Google who will then provide it to us for free (or VERY cheaply as a premier member) as a service and part of their total desktop management.
Just wanted to point out that there's many good things about this. Dismissing anything MS does simply because it's MS totally misses the point. Sure, it could (and might) suck, but it could also be a great thing.
What?? Cutting edge investigative journalism is all around us.
How else would we have learned about that Angelina Jolie caused the breakup of Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston??? Or that Oprah just lost another 40 pounds (or it gained 60 back)??? What about those photos of Brittney Spears not buckling her baby???
Problem is most folks actually care more about these topics than WMD, intelligence manipulations, torture, political corruption/bribery, or sole source contracts. Seems like most folks pick one side of the fence and then anyone who questions ANY decision becomes an evil liberal or neo-con with some secret, political agenda.
I think the larger problem is that the public has stopped caring about trivial things like laws or ethics because truth bas become relative and the other party always lies. Dare to question Halliburton and it's because you're a liberal zealot who hates big business. Dare to question affirmative action's effectiveness and it's because you're an evil racist. It's hard to have a normal discussion anymore without huge political overtones.
Interesting and insightful article as much for it's lack of relevations as for it's anecdotes. No insight into new spy capability or new, deceptive uses outside of casual observations of the skin color and accents of the attendees.
Of course, that's what one expects from semi-public conferences - lots of voyeurs, vague references, and (mostly) marketing crap. Real spook conferences will be classified and there's no way in hell reporters can get in there.
They probably keep out the press more to preserve their image of secrecy and semi-legitimacy than because they're actually concerned about privacy. After all, who wouldn't want to attend a 'secret' conference where the press if forbidden to attend. Wow! That's sounds cool and I don't even care what they're selling.
The question should be is it consistent with America's values? Or is it moral? And I think the answer is a resounding NO!
The problem when you ask about legality is that you get legal opinions with obscure analysis that circumvents the broader question of whether America SHOULD do this.
It's alot like the debate surrounding our system of legalized bribery (except we call it lobbying). "Oh, they paid for a plane trip, let's make those illegal." The debates center around the legal technicalities, but largely ignore the larger problem of targeted contributions directly affecting specific votes and the immoral culture of lobbying.
No, No, No! The headline and much of the article is extremely misleading).
Sure, governments are starting to use Linux as the ONLY viable alternative to the hated Microsoft.
But that's it. While Linux is open source, open source is not defined by using Linux.
Much of the US government explicitly bans open source and I've supported 2 foreign government contracts that also had explicit anti-open source requirements. And they ban open source specifically because it is a potential security risk. In fact, it seems quite reasonable to question why the US (or European) countries would want to use open source code that may have been developed in China or even France (or others countries well known for their industrial espionage).
In any case, who the hell actually believes open source is MORE secure simply because they publish their millions of lines of code? Like ANY customer is actually going to look at the code.
Ok, before flaming, I agree some, well tested, well accepted, and well controlled open source with blessed versioning is more secure (probably MUCH more secure) because of exhaustive testing and support by real companies, but that's VERY different than arguing it's more secure governments can peek at the source code.
As a side note, open STANDARDS are a completely different topic and all governments want, love, and support open standards. Unfortunately, Open Source and Open Standards are very often confused by governments and government contracts.
That said, some countries like open source because it providesa competative advantage. For instance, China is rapidly excelling in HW production so open source acts to undermine the competative advantages more developed countries have built up in their commercial software industries. (That, and open source allows the Chinese government to insert all sorts of filters in place, but that's a different story).
OMG - what's the problem here. It's just like France to step in to regulate the market and punish businesses simply because they make too great a product.
You have a merchant selling proprietary content for a proprietary device. If you don't like the model, just buy from someone else. It's really not that complicated. That's what capitalism is all about and why much of the IT world is rapidly moving towards open standards.
Next thing you know, France will force all the telcos to make sure all the ringtones and video games I download to my phone can run on all the other little phones. It's ridiculous!!
(Ok, Apple's iPod policy pisses me off too, but I have a CHOICE. Apple has always been extremely proprietary and controlling which is the main reason their stuff works so well).
I lived in Silicon Valley and the DC region and worked with VCs in both areas. There's a tremendous difference in culture between the two regions. West coast startups are all about innovation and foster new ideas. East coast companies are all about services and contract execution. That's why you have SUN and Apple in California and AOL and Verizon on the east.
California focuses on brilliance and creativity. East coast focuses on formality and contract execution. I was think that was government-related, but it's also true within NYC with financial services and more old-school business.
So, Silicon Valley CULTURE is very unique and it's far more important than $$ and nerds.
Hmmmm, shouldn't the PARENTS be the ones responsible for monitoring their kids behavior after school hours?
So, who decides what "inappropriate" behavior is?
Most teachers think cursing is "inappropriate", but I certainly wouldn't want my kids disciplined BY THE SCHOOL for cursing. It's ridiculous to even think about.
And, if the kids post really inappropriate stuff (like sexual activities or beatings), then the school should work through the parents and, if appropriate, the police.
I've got 2 teens with MySpace accounts and, while I 'spy' on them, I know their home pages and occassionally view them to make sure they're not out of line. Just knowing that I can see them prevents them from getting out of hand. (And, in fact, they were a bit over-the-top before I started viewing them). But they curse and have a few weird links, but they need to express themselves. And I'd be totally pissed if the school tried to shut down their sites.
Aaaahhh - damn. I knew I shouldn't use my real name when I registered. Oh god, what am I gonna do now - aaaahhhh.
Actually, I think many people invent a psuedo-name and often don't realize when they've crossed the line from anonymous to identifiable when you look at the collection of what they post. The vastness of the internet makes people feel safe even when their standing naked in public.
I've worked with 2 people who were fired over blogs they thought were quite anonymous, but it became quite clear who was writing them when you looked at the collection of posts. They both knew perfectly well if they were caught they'd be fired (and they should've been), but they also felt quite anonymous since they didn't use their 'real names. It's ALOT like folks that post 'anonymous' comments on stock boards.
The article talks about selectively prioritizing data streams, which does seem almost evil on the face of it.
But what if they left the existing infrastructure in place and focused offering on enhanced access to paid sites through selective, local staging and caching (such as leveraging telco-based Yotta Yotta or Akamai implementations)? It seems reasonable to charge for this, it doesn't really impact the rest of the world, and it could enable much faster access.
Ok, it does sound a little bit evil. But certainly far less than deliberately routing non-paying sites through lower bandwidth lines.
We're using it across a 250+ person project distributed across 7 US location through multiple firewalls and it works GREAT! It not only works well within our company, but we use it extensively to 'publish' project deliverables and status to our clients and selectively share information with subcontractors.
It's also very easy to setup new Sharepoint sites for new projects.
I also used Lotus 2-3 years ago and it was far more difficult to use and setup new areas. Sharepoint beats Lotus hands-down.
For what it does, it does very well and is easy to use. For developers, it's not a CM tool and doesn't seem particularly oriented towards them, so perhaps you were just looking for something else?
While, if true, it's a terrible injustice (although it seems so blatantly unfair that I'd think the courts would throw out such crap). (Personally, I'd bet there's more gray than the open letter admits to after the whole topic seemed to steamroll out of control).
However, it does make one wonder how accountable folks are for the rants they make as bloggers....
While I probably don't want to be named as a plantiff, if I complained on a blog that my Viagra didn't work (or, rather, if my girlfriend complained - not that she ever would, of course, but I digress), can I be dragged into court as a hostile witness against Pfizer? What if I go the extra mile and setup a blog that has frequent criticism of the product?
Minimally, it seems reasonable for lawyers might want to scan blogs for witnesses and potentially even compell them to testify. Even without being named a plantiff, that's pretty scary.
Thus far, I think most of the questions about a blogger's accountability have centered on slander. But using blogs as evidence or compelling bloggers to testify seem like potentially serious and legitimate issues that haven't really been explored much.
FSF used to be about "creating" free software, not stealing original "content". This is a fairly significant, but relatively subtle evolution.
And I definitely think the hazmat costumes detract from their message. You'd think they would've learned from PETA and brought some naked folks to protest instead of dressing up like idiots to make their point.
1) Employees at the satellite offices don't pay NY taxes. Why don't you use these offices as your base and telecommute to these?
2) The business would probably have to establish a place of business in NJ (which probably couldn't be your house). Or, if your company really liked you, you could establish an LLC in NJ and consult. You'd save ALOT more than just state taxes that way.
Well, NY has long had the right to tax nonresident employees whose income comes from NY services. That's been an decades long debate for out-of-state commuters as well as the newer debate amongst telecommuters.
That's a penalty to an employer and employee who sets up shop in NYC - just deal with it. Or leave.
So, if the employer really liked you and wanted to support telecommuting, they'd just setup a satellite office in NJ or Connecticut and host a few servers there so that could be your main location. So blame your damned employer because they could easily fix the problem if they cared enough about you to actually do something. But, no, your bosses want that prestigious NYC address and don't want to help the little guy.
PS I recognize the problems with telecommuting or even commuting double taxation. But local/state tax laws are deeply mired in local politics and if business just started setting up shop (or just satellite offices) in places with more commuter/tele-commuter friendly locations, the problem solves itself.
Hmmmm, of course the article focuses on the big evil website administrators for attacking the small defenseless students who tried to (probably) illegally break into his system. The article carefully avoids any discussion of what these students actually did to 'discover' the vulnerabilities.
I'd venture to say that most hackers 'smart' enough to hack into a website is probably smart enough to send an anonymous email reporting the hack. If the administrator ignores the emails or warnings, then the burden falls upon them.
This is similar to a crook breaking into a house and then reporting the secret stash of drugs or child porn they found. Ok, it would be nice if they could report it anonymously, but it certainly doesn't justify the initial illegal behavior. And, like most crooks, they probably break into hundreds of places before they either get caught or find stuff worth reporting (like being able to access student grades or SSN).
That said, I agree it's in the website's best interest to allow folks to anonomously post vulnerabilities. Duh.
Slashdot Mirror
Google is spending a ton of money working on exactly that.
6 -29-endece-google_N.htm/)
Yeah - but I was thinking of something beyond keyword or proximity search. Something, er, semantic. But actually semantic, not like the semantic web. Something that could spot correlations across complex documents or organize the information beyond a top 10 list of hits or actually answer questions. While useful, keyword search hardly provides the rich semantic environment needed to organize the world's information.
I'm sure Google is working on this as well as many dozens of other companies (like Endeca). (See http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/cnet/2007-0
Sure - life would be so much easier if everyone spoke the same language and all businesses worked together for a common good. And everyone used Linux and open standards and shared data. But, then again, any structured approach would work well in this environment or in other closed communities where everyone agrees on XML and API standards already.
But give me something to work with the vast amounts of unstructured information out there - not just the generic header information surrounding the really interesting stuff. I'm just hoping that Web 3.0 focuses more on this area to support a real information revolution rather than just over-formatting the already semi-structured pieces of data that we already know about.
Ok, I get that /. readers hate Microsoft, but this is really a story about doing business in China more than how evil Microsoft is. The article really stresses how much Microsoft was hated when they tried the strong-arm tactics of selling (even more than in America) until they invested heavily in the country and opened a research center to change their image.
That really applies to all businesses trying to do business in China - particularly sales. It's actually quite an interesting story of business culture clashes and a good lesson on how standard US and EU business practices don't really work well in China.
I doubt most folks would disagree with that for basic word processing, power computer users (which includes 98% of /. readers) often prefer memorizing tons of secret key strokes over using the mouse. Duh. But for folks that don't live and breath these apps, mouse-driven menus at least let folks easily access EVERYTHING.
The issue is that it's inefficient to switch between multiple input devices so one should design GUIs that allow users to go with the flow rather than forcing them to constantly switch in the middle of their workflow. But the article obsesses with trying to argue that the keyboard is far superior to the mouse rather than saying the keyboard is better for applications that focus on text entry.
Try creating Powerpoint slides without a mouse - or navigating the web - or playing games - or anything except for text-entry centric apps. It's a ridiculous premise to argue that the mouse is obsolete.
Jeez - the link seems like a pure political rant against SIRA. While it's an important issue, I would've hoped slashdot might have linked to a more intelligent article that actually discusses the bill.
Here's a much more thorough discussion of the bill:
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html
This article counters a number of the rants on the extremely biased link slashdot provided.
For instance, the slashdot political link claims "It would require all incidental copies of music to be licensed separately from the originating copy. Even copies of songs that are cached in your computer's memory..."
However, the link above specifically says:
"the proposed blanket license covers all intermediate copies (e.g., server, cache and buffer copies) necessary to facilitate the digital delivery of music and applies to streaming and limited downloads."
I'm not arguing that it's a good bill (and I'm pretty sure it sucks), only that the initial link is so blatantly political that it's hardly an objective source for ANY information and is easily proven wrong by a casual read at the facts. Shame on you slashdot for posting such biased and political crap soley to incite a flamewar.
Black Apple sounds so much cooler than that sissy berry crap. Besides, think of all those cool goth kids that would want one. Or maybe MacBlack - you could explode into a whole new ethnic community...
What's with all the rants about renting software. That's hardly the point of the article or service-based software.
Service based software has many revenue streams and powerful advantages. First, it'd be great to have a virtual desktop that followed me whereever I logged into. Not only do my files follow, but I can login to a kiosk and actually edit my Powerpoint before a presentation (without the danger of locally saving it). This is a great model (with enough bandwidth) that facilitates collaboration and mobility.
Second, many companies are already paying through the nose for a similar model. We pay hundreds of dollars/year/user for PC service support with software. Many folks only occassionally use the MS apps, but we have to buy licenses for each PC. It would be FAR cheaper if we could centrally host the applications and pay by usage. And this would also enable us to automatically backup files and allow users to access programs from home. Users often lose data when their desktop crashes. No more with service-based software!
Third, look at the Turbo-Tax model. It's $70 for the desktop version (PLUS electronic filing fees) and $20 online with FREE electronic filing. The service based model would be similar. Pay $500 for MS Office or $40/year to use/access the same thing. It's likely to be MUCH cheaper.
Fourth, they'll also license it to folks like Google who will then provide it to us for free (or VERY cheaply as a premier member) as a service and part of their total desktop management.
Just wanted to point out that there's many good things about this. Dismissing anything MS does simply because it's MS totally misses the point. Sure, it could (and might) suck, but it could also be a great thing.
What?? Cutting edge investigative journalism is all around us.
How else would we have learned about that Angelina Jolie caused the breakup of Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston??? Or that Oprah just lost another 40 pounds (or it gained 60 back)??? What about those photos of Brittney Spears not buckling her baby???
Problem is most folks actually care more about these topics than WMD, intelligence manipulations, torture, political corruption/bribery, or sole source contracts. Seems like most folks pick one side of the fence and then anyone who questions ANY decision becomes an evil liberal or neo-con with some secret, political agenda.
I think the larger problem is that the public has stopped caring about trivial things like laws or ethics because truth bas become relative and the other party always lies. Dare to question Halliburton and it's because you're a liberal zealot who hates big business. Dare to question affirmative action's effectiveness and it's because you're an evil racist. It's hard to have a normal discussion anymore without huge political overtones.
Interesting and insightful article as much for it's lack of relevations as for it's anecdotes. No insight into new spy capability or new, deceptive uses outside of casual observations of the skin color and accents of the attendees.
Of course, that's what one expects from semi-public conferences - lots of voyeurs, vague references, and (mostly) marketing crap. Real spook conferences will be classified and there's no way in hell reporters can get in there.
They probably keep out the press more to preserve their image of secrecy and semi-legitimacy than because they're actually concerned about privacy. After all, who wouldn't want to attend a 'secret' conference where the press if forbidden to attend. Wow! That's sounds cool and I don't even care what they're selling.
I don't think the question should be is it legal?
The question should be is it consistent with America's values? Or is it moral? And I think the answer is a resounding NO!
The problem when you ask about legality is that you get legal opinions with obscure analysis that circumvents the broader question of whether America SHOULD do this.
It's alot like the debate surrounding our system of legalized bribery (except we call it lobbying). "Oh, they paid for a plane trip, let's make those illegal." The debates center around the legal technicalities, but largely ignore the larger problem of targeted contributions directly affecting specific votes and the immoral culture of lobbying.
it's alot better to fight other nerds than get beat up in real life... At least that pocket protector will save you :)
They should try a moshing. At least you get to beat people to music.
No, No, No! The headline and much of the article is extremely misleading).
Sure, governments are starting to use Linux as the ONLY viable alternative to the hated Microsoft.
But that's it. While Linux is open source, open source is not defined by using Linux.
Much of the US government explicitly bans open source and I've supported 2 foreign government contracts that also had explicit anti-open source requirements. And they ban open source specifically because it is a potential security risk. In fact, it seems quite reasonable to question why the US (or European) countries would want to use open source code that may have been developed in China or even France (or others countries well known for their industrial espionage).
In any case, who the hell actually believes open source is MORE secure simply because they publish their millions of lines of code? Like ANY customer is actually going to look at the code.
Ok, before flaming, I agree some, well tested, well accepted, and well controlled open source with blessed versioning is more secure (probably MUCH more secure) because of exhaustive testing and support by real companies, but that's VERY different than arguing it's more secure governments can peek at the source code.
As a side note, open STANDARDS are a completely different topic and all governments want, love, and support open standards. Unfortunately, Open Source and Open Standards are very often confused by governments and government contracts.
That said, some countries like open source because it providesa competative advantage. For instance, China is rapidly excelling in HW production so open source acts to undermine the competative advantages more developed countries have built up in their commercial software industries. (That, and open source allows the Chinese government to insert all sorts of filters in place, but that's a different story).
OMG - what's the problem here. It's just like France to step in to regulate the market and punish businesses simply because they make too great a product.
You have a merchant selling proprietary content for a proprietary device. If you don't like the model, just buy from someone else. It's really not that complicated. That's what capitalism is all about and why much of the IT world is rapidly moving towards open standards.
Next thing you know, France will force all the telcos to make sure all the ringtones and video games I download to my phone can run on all the other little phones. It's ridiculous!!
(Ok, Apple's iPod policy pisses me off too, but I have a CHOICE. Apple has always been extremely proprietary and controlling which is the main reason their stuff works so well).
I lived in Silicon Valley and the DC region and worked with VCs in both areas. There's a tremendous difference in culture between the two regions. West coast startups are all about innovation and foster new ideas. East coast companies are all about services and contract execution. That's why you have SUN and Apple in California and AOL and Verizon on the east.
California focuses on brilliance and creativity. East coast focuses on formality and contract execution. I was think that was government-related, but it's also true within NYC with financial services and more old-school business.
So, Silicon Valley CULTURE is very unique and it's far more important than $$ and nerds.
Hmmmm, shouldn't the PARENTS be the ones responsible for monitoring their kids behavior after school hours?
So, who decides what "inappropriate" behavior is?
Most teachers think cursing is "inappropriate", but I certainly wouldn't want my kids disciplined BY THE SCHOOL for cursing. It's ridiculous to even think about.
And, if the kids post really inappropriate stuff (like sexual activities or beatings), then the school should work through the parents and, if appropriate, the police.
I've got 2 teens with MySpace accounts and, while I 'spy' on them, I know their home pages and occassionally view them to make sure they're not out of line. Just knowing that I can see them prevents them from getting out of hand. (And, in fact, they were a bit over-the-top before I started viewing them). But they curse and have a few weird links, but they need to express themselves. And I'd be totally pissed if the school tried to shut down their sites.
Aaaahhh - damn. I knew I shouldn't use my real name when I registered. Oh god, what am I gonna do now - aaaahhhh.
Actually, I think many people invent a psuedo-name and often don't realize when they've crossed the line from anonymous to identifiable when you look at the collection of what they post. The vastness of the internet makes people feel safe even when their standing naked in public.
I've worked with 2 people who were fired over blogs they thought were quite anonymous, but it became quite clear who was writing them when you looked at the collection of posts. They both knew perfectly well if they were caught they'd be fired (and they should've been), but they also felt quite anonymous since they didn't use their 'real names. It's ALOT like folks that post 'anonymous' comments on stock boards.
The article talks about selectively prioritizing data streams, which does seem almost evil on the face of it.
But what if they left the existing infrastructure in place and focused offering on enhanced access to paid sites through selective, local staging and caching (such as leveraging telco-based Yotta Yotta or Akamai implementations)? It seems reasonable to charge for this, it doesn't really impact the rest of the world, and it could enable much faster access.
Ok, it does sound a little bit evil. But certainly far less than deliberately routing non-paying sites through lower bandwidth lines.
Why was Sharepoint unworkable?
We're using it across a 250+ person project distributed across 7 US location through multiple firewalls and it works GREAT! It not only works well within our company, but we use it extensively to 'publish' project deliverables and status to our clients and selectively share information with subcontractors.
It's also very easy to setup new Sharepoint sites for new projects.
I also used Lotus 2-3 years ago and it was far more difficult to use and setup new areas. Sharepoint beats Lotus hands-down.
For what it does, it does very well and is easy to use. For developers, it's not a CM tool and doesn't seem particularly oriented towards them, so perhaps you were just looking for something else?
While, if true, it's a terrible injustice (although it seems so blatantly unfair that I'd think the courts would throw out such crap). (Personally, I'd bet there's more gray than the open letter admits to after the whole topic seemed to steamroll out of control).
However, it does make one wonder how accountable folks are for the rants they make as bloggers....
While I probably don't want to be named as a plantiff, if I complained on a blog that my Viagra didn't work (or, rather, if my girlfriend complained - not that she ever would, of course, but I digress), can I be dragged into court as a hostile witness against Pfizer? What if I go the extra mile and setup a blog that has frequent criticism of the product?
Minimally, it seems reasonable for lawyers might want to scan blogs for witnesses and potentially even compell them to testify. Even without being named a plantiff, that's pretty scary.
Thus far, I think most of the questions about a blogger's accountability have centered on slander. But using blogs as evidence or compelling bloggers to testify seem like potentially serious and legitimate issues that haven't really been explored much.
FSF used to be about "creating" free software, not stealing original "content". This is a fairly significant, but relatively subtle evolution.
And I definitely think the hazmat costumes detract from their message. You'd think they would've learned from PETA and brought some naked folks to protest instead of dressing up like idiots to make their point.
Fortunately I had my handy l337 speak converter handy to translate your handle:
/\/\07|-|3r PhU(|3r?
http://www.brenz.net/l337Maker.asp
Pretty cool, eh? Now I can 74L| with the best of them.
50, \/\/|-|0'$ (00L |\|0\/\/
And if they really joined forces, they'd need a new name. Hmmmm, let's see, something like: Nike + Apple = Nipple.
Yeah, I'd definitely buy one of those! Maybe two.
1) Employees at the satellite offices don't pay NY taxes. Why don't you use these offices as your base and telecommute to these?
2) The business would probably have to establish a place of business in NJ (which probably couldn't be your house). Or, if your company really liked you, you could establish an LLC in NJ and consult. You'd save ALOT more than just state taxes that way.
Well, NY has long had the right to tax nonresident employees whose income comes from NY services. That's been an decades long debate for out-of-state commuters as well as the newer debate amongst telecommuters.
That's a penalty to an employer and employee who sets up shop in NYC - just deal with it. Or leave.
So, if the employer really liked you and wanted to support telecommuting, they'd just setup a satellite office in NJ or Connecticut and host a few servers there so that could be your main location. So blame your damned employer because they could easily fix the problem if they cared enough about you to actually do something. But, no, your bosses want that prestigious NYC address and don't want to help the little guy.
PS I recognize the problems with telecommuting or even commuting double taxation. But local/state tax laws are deeply mired in local politics and if business just started setting up shop (or just satellite offices) in places with more commuter/tele-commuter friendly locations, the problem solves itself.
Hmmmm, of course the article focuses on the big evil website administrators for attacking the small defenseless students who tried to (probably) illegally break into his system. The article carefully avoids any discussion of what these students actually did to 'discover' the vulnerabilities.
I'd venture to say that most hackers 'smart' enough to hack into a website is probably smart enough to send an anonymous email reporting the hack. If the administrator ignores the emails or warnings, then the burden falls upon them.
This is similar to a crook breaking into a house and then reporting the secret stash of drugs or child porn they found. Ok, it would be nice if they could report it anonymously, but it certainly doesn't justify the initial illegal behavior. And, like most crooks, they probably break into hundreds of places before they either get caught or find stuff worth reporting (like being able to access student grades or SSN).
That said, I agree it's in the website's best interest to allow folks to anonomously post vulnerabilities. Duh.