My experience with @home has been superb -- but I think that's because my cable operator is Comcast. I have had cable modem service for more than four years, and it has always been very well managed.
Maybe, but then wouldn't Motorola have to go against their endiadness philosphy? I think religious wars have been fought over less substantial differences of philosophy.
My experience is that Watcom SQL/Sybase SQL Anywhere/Sybase Adaptive Server Anywhere/whatever they're calling it today is the most ANSI compliant database. After all, didn't PostgreSQL just get outer joins in 7.1?
Nonetheless, we're using PostgreSQL for our current effort because of the price and the quality. It also has an amazing collection of built-in functions, and its flexibility for implementing triggers/rules is superb, if a bit obscure on occasion.
Well, I suppose I should be happy that at least one person noticed. I think I should forgo my attempts at humor and just wait for the pros to jump in.:-)
Gee, when I try doing that (adding 1.1 ULONG_MAX times) on my computer, the program doesn't want to finish. Is a 533 MHz AlphaPCreally that much slower than a 500 MHz Pentium?????
I disagree. Encrypting with your private key would reduce the effectiveness of the scanning systems. They would be required to engage in a heckuvalot more processing in order to scan for keywords and the like. Obviously, this does little to enhance the privacy of your email -- it merely serves to thwart the mindless scanners out there.
Although this would take some effort, much of the author's requirements could be met if people encrypted the text with their PRIVATE keys. The idea being that the same email could be sent to mailing lists, and the interested recipients could look up the public key to decrypt it. During transit, however, it would be encrypted, and the software attempting to scan everything would have a much harder job looking up individuals' public keys.
I think that Konqueror 2.2 is a stunning competitor to Internet Explore and Mozilla/Navigator. And KMail/Konqueror is a wonderful competitor to Outlook Express. I'm not putting all my hopes on Mozilla, that's for sure.
I would be more interested to see some substantive comments about the points I raised that highlight difficulties with the ideas you present in your original post. It seems to me that casually dismissing my mutual fund example is an attempt to ignore a serious issue with the concept you seem to be espousing. Obviously, the courts will have to deal with the problem, just like they would have to deal with the assignment of blame and punishment to the direct investors. However, the mutual fund example shows, IMHO, a flaw in the thinking behind your original idea. Ultimately, if your idea is to see the light of day in actual practice, the legislators who create the legislation necessary to implement your suggestions will have to answer questions such as these. And I suggest that there is no workable way to do what you propose.
To further highlight the problems inherent in your approach, how would the assignment of criminal blame be handled when there are literally tens of thousands of investors with voting stock in a company gone bad? I don't think there is any reasonable approach, and nothing I have seen posted so far seems to address the thorny issues involved. All I see is a bunch of ranting without much in the way of analysis. As I implied before, although the idea of punishing the owners of a bad company sounds good on the surface, its implementation raises too many issues that are extremely difficult or impossible to address. And I still say that doing so would lead to an economic environment that most would find intolerable.
I must admit, I don't follow your logic at all. I don't think I suggested that people "throw money around without regard to it's (sic) consequences." I think I did make a few points which nobody seems willing to address. How about the mutual fund example? I invest in a mutual fund which invests in a corporation that engages in criminal conduct. How do I get assessed my "share" of the criminal conduct, even though I had nothing to do with it? I'll say again that such a method of dispensing "justice" would result in a financial system that would work very poorly, and the resulting society would not be one in which I would care to live.
Your analogies are terrifically flawed. The driver and salesman you refer to are directly involved in the actions for which are appropriately punished. The driver is not punished criminally unless he has been shown to be criminally negligent in a court of law. Same for the snake oil salesman.
Just out of curiosity. How would you expect to see me "running around comp(l)aining about all the 'self serving politicos who run around tr(y)ing to crusif(y) people for driving acc(i)dents?'" You don't know me, and I don't know you. How do you presume to know what I run around "bitching and moaning about" anyway? In fact, I don't think I was "bitching and moaning" about anything in my response to your comments. It would be nice if we could have a civil discussion of the ideas involved without launching ad hominem attacks on the people with whom we're discussing these ideas.
Didn't say it would work. Just pointing out that these self serving public "servants" don't mind helping themselves to a share of the profits of the "evil" tobacco corporations.
Just out of curiosity: are you suggesting our government should legalize dangerous substances like cocaine and heroin and then tax the resulting profits? If so, what an interesting concept.
Well, I disagree completely with your analysis. I suppose we'll just have to wait until an experiment along these lines is actually attempted. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime.
For the record, we do police our corporations, and we hold accountable the people who should be held accountable -- the officers and other actual decision makers who commit criminal actions. But to hold shareholders criminally liable makes no sense in the justice system we have set up in this country (the US of A, just to be clear about my frame of reference).
I think the idea of holding shareholders liable beyond their financial investment for a company's bad behavior is a very poor one indeed. If shareholders could lose more than just their investment, and worse yet, be held criminally liable for behavior over which they had no control, then there would be a terrible disincentive for investing and our financial system would come to a screeching halt. And living under such conditions would not be the utopia many people think it would be.
Furthermore, there are other ramifications. For example, if such policies were implemented, what would be my liability if the bank where I deposited my money invested in such a "bad" company? What about a mutual fund? The need to track the behavior of a zillion companies is well beyond the capabilities of just about anybody.
And while we're at it, how about the behavior of all the self serving politicos who run around excoriating all these evil companies -- tobacco being the most shining examples of the moment -- while making sure they help themselves to a substantial share of the profits? Just because they call this profit sharing arrangement "taxation" doesn't make them any less guilty. If tobacco is the evil they say it is (and it is, to be sure), why don't they ban it outright?
Seems to me that StarOffice 5.2, freely available if not open source, does pretty much everything that M$ Office does. And it has the added virtue of working equally well on the Intel versions of Linux. And it imports and exports M$ Office docs extraordinarily well.
This discussion raises an interesting question in my mind -- how well do these schemes work with VMware? Suppose I created a VMware virtual computer running my favorite OS and installed Mathematica on it? Can't I run that VM on other computers and expect it to work? Since the hardware is virtualized, I would think that you could run this same VM over and over again. Just a thought. Has anybody tried this?
Then what is the reason that the natural 64 bit key length was forced by the government to be degraded to 56 bits before IBM could release their algorithm to the world? At least that's my understanding of how it went. I think that's one of the reasons many people are paranoid.
It seems to me that the "welded" carpet could server two useful purposes from a security perspective. First to prevent bugs from being planted beneath the carpet. Second to help form a "Faraday cage" in order to prevent the escape of RF signals from the room.
I am a native U.S. citizen working in the DC area. I have worked with numerous H-1B's and I find this guy's comments to be right on the mark. One of the problems in corporate America is that many management types view "coders" (programmers,...) as the low-lifes of the software development world, when in fact we're the ones that make everything happen. I'm in my 50's, and I intend to write software until I can't do it anymore. Of course this means that I have assumed the responsibility to keep myself up to date in various software development disciplines.
Most of my contemporaries prefer to be managers, of course. It seems to me that we overpay the managers and underpay the programmers as the normal course of doing business. And then we complain about not being able to find enough people to do the actual work!
Another thing I have observed is that the Indian H-1B's appear to be people who have succeeded in a highly competitive process to win the right to come to the states, and they are the most uniformly excellent group of software developers I have had the privilege to work with. Pretty much the same holds true for Chinese H-1B's as well, but the Indians have an edge in their English skills. Obviously, these are generalizations. Exceptions abound.
Slashdot Mirror
My experience with @home has been superb -- but I think that's because my cable operator is Comcast. I have had cable modem service for more than four years, and it has always been very well managed.
"... who wrote, directed and stared in this film..."
A clever misspelling of starred?
Maybe, but then wouldn't Motorola have to go against their endiadness philosphy? I think religious wars have been fought over less substantial differences of philosophy.
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!
OK. How about the fire-breathing-dragon version then: SMAUG??
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!
My experience is that Watcom SQL/Sybase SQL Anywhere/Sybase Adaptive Server Anywhere/whatever they're calling it today is the most ANSI compliant database. After all, didn't PostgreSQL just get outer joins in 7.1?
Nonetheless, we're using PostgreSQL for our current effort because of the price and the quality. It also has an amazing collection of built-in functions, and its flexibility for implementing triggers/rules is superb, if a bit obscure on occasion.
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!
Well, I suppose I should be happy that at least one person noticed. I think I should forgo my attempts at humor and just wait for the pros to jump in. :-)
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!
Gee, when I try doing that (adding 1.1 ULONG_MAX times) on my computer, the program doesn't want to finish. Is a 533 MHz AlphaPC really that much slower than a 500 MHz Pentium?????
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!
I disagree. Encrypting with your private key would reduce the effectiveness of the scanning systems. They would be required to engage in a heckuvalot more processing in order to scan for keywords and the like. Obviously, this does little to enhance the privacy of your email -- it merely serves to thwart the mindless scanners out there.
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!
Although this would take some effort, much of the author's requirements could be met if people encrypted the text with their PRIVATE keys. The idea being that the same email could be sent to mailing lists, and the interested recipients could look up the public key to decrypt it. During transit, however, it would be encrypted, and the software attempting to scan everything would have a much harder job looking up individuals' public keys.
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!
I think that Konqueror 2.2 is a stunning competitor to Internet Explore and Mozilla/Navigator. And KMail/Konqueror is a wonderful competitor to Outlook Express. I'm not putting all my hopes on Mozilla, that's for sure.
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!
You can get there via SafeWeb.
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!
I would be more interested to see some substantive comments about the points I raised that highlight difficulties with the ideas you present in your original post. It seems to me that casually dismissing my mutual fund example is an attempt to ignore a serious issue with the concept you seem to be espousing. Obviously, the courts will have to deal with the problem, just like they would have to deal with the assignment of blame and punishment to the direct investors. However, the mutual fund example shows, IMHO, a flaw in the thinking behind your original idea. Ultimately, if your idea is to see the light of day in actual practice, the legislators who create the legislation necessary to implement your suggestions will have to answer questions such as these. And I suggest that there is no workable way to do what you propose.
To further highlight the problems inherent in your approach, how would the assignment of criminal blame be handled when there are literally tens of thousands of investors with voting stock in a company gone bad? I don't think there is any reasonable approach, and nothing I have seen posted so far seems to address the thorny issues involved. All I see is a bunch of ranting without much in the way of analysis. As I implied before, although the idea of punishing the owners of a bad company sounds good on the surface, its implementation raises too many issues that are extremely difficult or impossible to address. And I still say that doing so would lead to an economic environment that most would find intolerable.
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!
I must admit, I don't follow your logic at all. I don't think I suggested that people "throw money around without regard to it's (sic) consequences." I think I did make a few points which nobody seems willing to address. How about the mutual fund example? I invest in a mutual fund which invests in a corporation that engages in criminal conduct. How do I get assessed my "share" of the criminal conduct, even though I had nothing to do with it? I'll say again that such a method of dispensing "justice" would result in a financial system that would work very poorly, and the resulting society would not be one in which I would care to live.
Your analogies are terrifically flawed. The driver and salesman you refer to are directly involved in the actions for which are appropriately punished. The driver is not punished criminally unless he has been shown to be criminally negligent in a court of law. Same for the snake oil salesman.
Just out of curiosity. How would you expect to see me "running around comp(l)aining about all the 'self serving politicos who run around tr(y)ing to crusif(y) people for driving acc(i)dents?'" You don't know me, and I don't know you. How do you presume to know what I run around "bitching and moaning about" anyway? In fact, I don't think I was "bitching and moaning" about anything in my response to your comments. It would be nice if we could have a civil discussion of the ideas involved without launching ad hominem attacks on the people with whom we're discussing these ideas.
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!
Didn't say it would work. Just pointing out that these self serving public "servants" don't mind helping themselves to a share of the profits of the "evil" tobacco corporations.
Just out of curiosity: are you suggesting our government should legalize dangerous substances like cocaine and heroin and then tax the resulting profits? If so, what an interesting concept.
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!
Well, I disagree completely with your analysis. I suppose we'll just have to wait until an experiment along these lines is actually attempted. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime.
For the record, we do police our corporations, and we hold accountable the people who should be held accountable -- the officers and other actual decision makers who commit criminal actions. But to hold shareholders criminally liable makes no sense in the justice system we have set up in this country (the US of A, just to be clear about my frame of reference).
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!
I think the idea of holding shareholders liable beyond their financial investment for a company's bad behavior is a very poor one indeed. If shareholders could lose more than just their investment, and worse yet, be held criminally liable for behavior over which they had no control, then there would be a terrible disincentive for investing and our financial system would come to a screeching halt. And living under such conditions would not be the utopia many people think it would be.
Furthermore, there are other ramifications. For example, if such policies were implemented, what would be my liability if the bank where I deposited my money invested in such a "bad" company? What about a mutual fund? The need to track the behavior of a zillion companies is well beyond the capabilities of just about anybody.
And while we're at it, how about the behavior of all the self serving politicos who run around excoriating all these evil companies -- tobacco being the most shining examples of the moment -- while making sure they help themselves to a substantial share of the profits? Just because they call this profit sharing arrangement "taxation" doesn't make them any less guilty. If tobacco is the evil they say it is (and it is, to be sure), why don't they ban it outright?
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!
No wonder nobody listens to me. My eyes have ALWAYS been brown. :-(
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!
Seems to me that StarOffice 5.2, freely available if not open source, does pretty much everything that M$ Office does. And it has the added virtue of working equally well on the Intel versions of Linux. And it imports and exports M$ Office docs extraordinarily well.
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!
This discussion raises an interesting question in my mind -- how well do these schemes work with VMware? Suppose I created a VMware virtual computer running my favorite OS and installed Mathematica on it? Can't I run that VM on other computers and expect it to work? Since the hardware is virtualized, I would think that you could run this same VM over and over again. Just a thought. Has anybody tried this?
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!
Then what is the reason that the natural 64 bit key length was forced by the government to be degraded to 56 bits before IBM could release their algorithm to the world? At least that's my understanding of how it went. I think that's one of the reasons many people are paranoid.
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!
It seems to me that the "welded" carpet could server two useful purposes from a security perspective. First to prevent bugs from being planted beneath the carpet. Second to help form a "Faraday cage" in order to prevent the escape of RF signals from the room.
I am a native U.S. citizen working in the DC area. I have worked with numerous H-1B's and I find this guy's comments to be right on the mark. One of the problems in corporate America is that many management types view "coders" (programmers, ...) as the low-lifes of the software development world, when in fact we're the ones that make everything happen. I'm in my 50's, and I intend to write software until I can't do it anymore. Of course this means that I have assumed the responsibility to keep myself up to date in various software development disciplines.
Most of my contemporaries prefer to be managers, of course. It seems to me that we overpay the managers and underpay the programmers as the normal course of doing business. And then we complain about not being able to find enough people to do the actual work!
Another thing I have observed is that the Indian H-1B's appear to be people who have succeeded in a highly competitive process to win the right to come to the states, and they are the most uniformly excellent group of software developers I have had the privilege to work with. Pretty much the same holds true for Chinese H-1B's as well, but the Indians have an edge in their English skills. Obviously, these are generalizations. Exceptions abound.
If it does, I'm GREEN with envy, inasmuch as my Alphas can't.
Didn't Ray Bradbury use this idea more creatively in Fahrenheit 451?