As a Brit, I have to ask, really, does anyone in the US actually care about the special relationship? Because all it seems to be, as you quite rightly state, is the UK metaphorically 'bending over'.
In the UK, we have the Data Protection Act. If I don't do everything in my power to protect confidential data on our systems, I'm failing in my duty. Personally, I'd much rather trust people to do the right thing. Sadly, people often do the wrong thing, either by choice or by accident. I can't afford to take the risk; and whilst I do block applications by default, I go out of my way to accomodate user requests for non-business related applications, but only after I've checked the application myself.
Without meaning to sound a bit mean, at the end of the day my number one responsibilty is to make sure the network functions in line with the needs of the college. Office applications and financial software is essential; news tickers, screensavers and IM applications are not.
Alright, so thin clients are nothing new. Let the server do the work. Save money on the desktop.
Across my infrastructure, which typically has a gig fibre backbone, and 100mb at the desktop, this isn't a mean feat. Hell, I've got it running across the wireless as well.
But to run this across the internet? Gimmie a break. To support my 450+ machines, I would need a rather serious pipe. Which will have a serious cost attached.
Maybe there is a market for home users doing this, but the scalability is going to kill large scale adoption. And since people use (I generalise here, true) Microsoft at work, are they going to learn a new OS at home? Considering the market penetration of the other free OS', I doubt it.
Apologies for sounding negative, but I don't think we'll see this for a while yet.
Good point. Of course, if I used Skype, then I'd probably have a different viewpoint.
But there is a definate difference between allowing an application on a personal machine / network, and a corporate (or in my case academic) network. In the personal case, you can install what you like and you want your ISP to allow whatever you deem fit. In my case, I want to block certain software, and my ISP (in this case, my local education authority) to allow anything I deem fit.
I have a very simple policy; if a user wants something on a machine that is outside the core software I support, they have to get my permission.
This policy lasted all of 5 minutes during a meeting with the Senior Leadership Team, who completely ignored what I said and told me, in no uncertain terms, that Skype was going on their laptops.
Personally, whilst I understand that Skype want to be sneaky by design, I'm worried about allowing software on to the network that I can't monitor and disable at will. And as the discussion here has already mentioned, disabling 80 really is not an option.
Ahh, now, I'm not suggesting that the UN route is the right way to go. And you are of course right, any extreme points from any source will introduce disruption. I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say that the US is anywhere near as bad as China, or Saudi Arabia mind you.
When any one nation has more power than the others, there is a problem. Of course, there is probably an Animal Farm quote which would be appropriate about everyone being equal.
Microsoft is a company, the internet is not. You are not really comparing like-for-like I'm afraid; there is a fundamental difference between the two. The internet is essentially a service these days, and thus warrants a different level of control, especially considering how deeply it has entered areas of society.
The last time ICANN was discussed in detail here, it was with regards to the.xxx TLD. Inevitably, the discussion descended into a bit of a flame-war regarding the neutrality of the entire process, given ICANN being a 'US-influenced' governing body.
So, if no-one country controls the internet, do my American friends agree that the time has come to create a new body to oversee the decision making process. A truly global body for a truly global infrastructure.
Personally, I do think it is right that all groups get an equal say in the future of the internet. We've got to work together otherwise we run the risk of fragmentation, which is the last thing anyone (apart from China I guess) wants. What say you guys?
(I'm not trying to start a flame war, but this question was always going to be asked...
Anyone wanting to copyright the smell of some of the patrons here at/. should be allowed; we can file a class action for all the health problems it'll cause...
I think I need some fresh air just *thinking* about it.
Personally, I'm not sure how much I'd like to trust Google as my ISP. Considering that deleting email from my gmail account doesn't automatically mean it disappears from their servers, I'd be interested to see how long they'd store my browsing habbits.
Maybe I'm being overly paranoid, but I just don't like the idea that my browsing habbits from today could bite me in the ass in a few years time.
Yes, Google are still riding on the backs of their 'do no evil' mantra, but something has gotta give. Given the current political climate in the US, I'd rather not leave a nice handy log trail for someone to follow.
That said, I think I trust Google more than anyone else right now.
Probably a minature gyroscope or similar device. When it is rotated or moved beyond a certain angle the screen flicks on*.
The motion sensor in the new Apple Macbook's is probably a good starting point; I wonder if it is possible to hack those to only turn the screen on when the Macbook is 'on the level'.
One of the obvious differences between the US system and the system here in the UK is that bills are typically introduced on a single issue. Amendments are discussed and then voted upon, but it is rare to see seemingly unrelated points being tacked on to bills.
As for legislation being introduced, the ruling party has no interest in introducing measures to curb it's own power, so I can't see how you'd get such a thing to pass.
I think you've mis-understood the sentiments in my original posting.
I agree with what you say; the patent system should exist to spur innovation, be it in big multi-nationals in vast labs, or people in their own houses.
However, if someone devises something, then the patent system should protect their interest and provide a means to reward them for their work. In this case, the 'big guy' essentially stole the work from the 'small guy', and imho the patent system shouldn't just allow anyone a free ride to do that.
Software patents are different. Perhaps then, we should seek to create a system for software that doesn't follow in the footsteps of normal patent law. You mentioned Amazon earlier; clearly systems like one-click are questionable and have no place in 'patent' law.
You're clearly well read on the subject; do you have any links to alternative thoughts on the matter?
I have to admit, I haven't read the patent itself.
If the patent isn't valid to start with, it does of course call into question the whole thing. I'm glad someone can actually distill that patent into something readable.
You're quite correct, I guess it does seem a bit arbitary sometimes. Considering the facts in this one, I do still agree it is a good decision. If the patent system was reformed properly, it would be easier to make decisions about what is 'good' and what is 'bad'.
To use your analogy, if Creative did create something and Apple decided against using it (licence too high, etc), but then had a change of heart and used it without paying Creative for a licence, then Apple would (imho) be in the wrong.
Now if Creative patented something and then sat on their hands not using it, whilst stopping others from using it, then we have a problem.
Patents are messy, but I do think we have to judge things on a case-by-case basis.
This is how the patent system should work. A guy came up with an idea and tried to make his buck. MS stole the idea, which for all intents and purposes ruined his chances of making his money back. So, he sued them and got what he deserved. Eventually.
Of course, 14 years must be a hell of a long time to wait for your money...
I wonder if someone at MS is feeling just a bit stupid right now. Yeah yeah, £65mil is chump change to them, but they do leave with a substantial amount of egg on their face!
Dear US Goverment,
Good luck with that, but we're fine right now.
Yours sincerely,
The Rest of the World
(PS, we'd kick your ass. Googlefight confirms it!)
I have no problem with the US introducing stupid laws in their own country. But why on earth does this need to be pushed into the WIPO? Surely there are more important things to be worrying about than yet more rules to line the pockets of big business?
Yeah, thinking about it I probably was a little hasty to ignore that aspect. Considering I've spent hours building computers for a variety of uses, I'm not sure why I ignored that part. Must be getting cynical in my old age;)
You can wait 6 months, and pick up the required parts for half the cost, or even just buy an off the shelf system. I guess it depends which you value more; an immediate payback for the time you spent, or money in the bank and time saved.
Password security actually doesn't bother me that much.
Physical access to systems is a much more pressing concern. I work in a college, and there is no way I'd be able to enforce a strict password scheme in such an enviroment. Students can't remember a simple password, let alone something designed to beat a determined attacker.
So, rooms are locked, laptops are secured, and accounts are locked down so that any attacker hacking an account is left with nowhere to go.
Obviously, I enforce strict password schemes for myself and the rest of the ICT Support team. But for the entire user-base? Sadly, I don't have the time.
Hell, you can go further back than Freeserve if you want to find really crazy deals.
Remember Screaming.net? No monthly fee and no call charges between 6pm - 8am, all you had to do was change away from BT to Localtel.
Of course, the service was crap and iirc the support was pretty abysmal too.
Motto of the story? You get what you pay for. Whilst I think your idea has some merit to it, the idea that an ISP will 'share' money from Google just doesn't seem viable. Call me a cynic, but as far as I'm concerned, they want our cash, Google's cash, and when it comes to infrastructure, they'll happily take it from the Goverment as well.
And on that note, I'd better step off the soapbox!
Slashdot Mirror
As a Brit, I have to ask, really, does anyone in the US actually care about the special relationship? Because all it seems to be, as you quite rightly state, is the UK metaphorically 'bending over'.
In the UK, we have the Data Protection Act. If I don't do everything in my power to protect confidential data on our systems, I'm failing in my duty. Personally, I'd much rather trust people to do the right thing. Sadly, people often do the wrong thing, either by choice or by accident. I can't afford to take the risk; and whilst I do block applications by default, I go out of my way to accomodate user requests for non-business related applications, but only after I've checked the application myself.
Without meaning to sound a bit mean, at the end of the day my number one responsibilty is to make sure the network functions in line with the needs of the college. Office applications and financial software is essential; news tickers, screensavers and IM applications are not.
Alright, so thin clients are nothing new. Let the server do the work. Save money on the desktop.
Across my infrastructure, which typically has a gig fibre backbone, and 100mb at the desktop, this isn't a mean feat. Hell, I've got it running across the wireless as well.
But to run this across the internet? Gimmie a break. To support my 450+ machines, I would need a rather serious pipe. Which will have a serious cost attached.
Maybe there is a market for home users doing this, but the scalability is going to kill large scale adoption. And since people use (I generalise here, true) Microsoft at work, are they going to learn a new OS at home? Considering the market penetration of the other free OS', I doubt it.
Apologies for sounding negative, but I don't think we'll see this for a while yet.
Good point. Of course, if I used Skype, then I'd probably have a different viewpoint.
But there is a definate difference between allowing an application on a personal machine / network, and a corporate (or in my case academic) network. In the personal case, you can install what you like and you want your ISP to allow whatever you deem fit. In my case, I want to block certain software, and my ISP (in this case, my local education authority) to allow anything I deem fit.
I have a very simple policy; if a user wants something on a machine that is outside the core software I support, they have to get my permission.
This policy lasted all of 5 minutes during a meeting with the Senior Leadership Team, who completely ignored what I said and told me, in no uncertain terms, that Skype was going on their laptops.
Personally, whilst I understand that Skype want to be sneaky by design, I'm worried about allowing software on to the network that I can't monitor and disable at will. And as the discussion here has already mentioned, disabling 80 really is not an option.
Ahh, now, I'm not suggesting that the UN route is the right way to go. And you are of course right, any extreme points from any source will introduce disruption. I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say that the US is anywhere near as bad as China, or Saudi Arabia mind you.
When any one nation has more power than the others, there is a problem. Of course, there is probably an Animal Farm quote which would be appropriate about everyone being equal.
Microsoft is a company, the internet is not. You are not really comparing like-for-like I'm afraid; there is a fundamental difference between the two. The internet is essentially a service these days, and thus warrants a different level of control, especially considering how deeply it has entered areas of society.
The last time ICANN was discussed in detail here, it was with regards to the .xxx TLD. Inevitably, the discussion descended into a bit of a flame-war regarding the neutrality of the entire process, given ICANN being a 'US-influenced' governing body.
So, if no-one country controls the internet, do my American friends agree that the time has come to create a new body to oversee the decision making process. A truly global body for a truly global infrastructure.
Personally, I do think it is right that all groups get an equal say in the future of the internet. We've got to work together otherwise we run the risk of fragmentation, which is the last thing anyone (apart from China I guess) wants. What say you guys?
(I'm not trying to start a flame war, but this question was always going to be asked...
Anyone wanting to copyright the smell of some of the patrons here at /. should be allowed; we can file a class action for all the health problems it'll cause...
I think I need some fresh air just *thinking* about it.
Travelling at 150mph on a circuit is easy. Well, relatively anyways.
Now if they managed to get this car travelling at 20mph down a city street during rush hour, we'd really have something useful on our hands.
Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed. But a self-driving car on an empty track is a million miles away from the everyday driving conditions we encounter.
Personally, I'm not sure how much I'd like to trust Google as my ISP. Considering that deleting email from my gmail account doesn't automatically mean it disappears from their servers, I'd be interested to see how long they'd store my browsing habbits.
Maybe I'm being overly paranoid, but I just don't like the idea that my browsing habbits from today could bite me in the ass in a few years time.
Yes, Google are still riding on the backs of their 'do no evil' mantra, but something has gotta give. Given the current political climate in the US, I'd rather not leave a nice handy log trail for someone to follow.
That said, I think I trust Google more than anyone else right now.
Probably a minature gyroscope or similar device. When it is rotated or moved beyond a certain angle the screen flicks on*.
The motion sensor in the new Apple Macbook's is probably a good starting point; I wonder if it is possible to hack those to only turn the screen on when the Macbook is 'on the level'.
* I admit, I could be talking rubbish here...
One of the obvious differences between the US system and the system here in the UK is that bills are typically introduced on a single issue. Amendments are discussed and then voted upon, but it is rare to see seemingly unrelated points being tacked on to bills.
As for legislation being introduced, the ruling party has no interest in introducing measures to curb it's own power, so I can't see how you'd get such a thing to pass.
Nothing to see here. Please move along.
Slightly prophetic of slashdot, given the article!
I think you've mis-understood the sentiments in my original posting.
I agree with what you say; the patent system should exist to spur innovation, be it in big multi-nationals in vast labs, or people in their own houses.
However, if someone devises something, then the patent system should protect their interest and provide a means to reward them for their work. In this case, the 'big guy' essentially stole the work from the 'small guy', and imho the patent system shouldn't just allow anyone a free ride to do that.
Software patents are different. Perhaps then, we should seek to create a system for software that doesn't follow in the footsteps of normal patent law. You mentioned Amazon earlier; clearly systems like one-click are questionable and have no place in 'patent' law.
You're clearly well read on the subject; do you have any links to alternative thoughts on the matter?
I have to admit, I haven't read the patent itself.
If the patent isn't valid to start with, it does of course call into question the whole thing. I'm glad someone can actually distill that patent into something readable.
You're quite correct, I guess it does seem a bit arbitary sometimes. Considering the facts in this one, I do still agree it is a good decision. If the patent system was reformed properly, it would be easier to make decisions about what is 'good' and what is 'bad'.
To use your analogy, if Creative did create something and Apple decided against using it (licence too high, etc), but then had a change of heart and used it without paying Creative for a licence, then Apple would (imho) be in the wrong.
Now if Creative patented something and then sat on their hands not using it, whilst stopping others from using it, then we have a problem.
Patents are messy, but I do think we have to judge things on a case-by-case basis.
Good. Good. Good.
This is how the patent system should work. A guy came up with an idea and tried to make his buck. MS stole the idea, which for all intents and purposes ruined his chances of making his money back. So, he sued them and got what he deserved. Eventually.
Of course, 14 years must be a hell of a long time to wait for your money...
I wonder if someone at MS is feeling just a bit stupid right now. Yeah yeah, £65mil is chump change to them, but they do leave with a substantial amount of egg on their face!
Alright, I'll hold up my hand to this one.
I'm a bloody twit -_-
Dear US Goverment, Good luck with that, but we're fine right now. Yours sincerely, The Rest of the World (PS, we'd kick your ass. Googlefight confirms it!)
Dear US Government,
Get stuffed.
Yours sincerely,
The Rest of the World.
I have no problem with the US introducing stupid laws in their own country. But why on earth does this need to be pushed into the WIPO? Surely there are more important things to be worrying about than yet more rules to line the pockets of big business?
Yeah, thinking about it I probably was a little hasty to ignore that aspect. Considering I've spent hours building computers for a variety of uses, I'm not sure why I ignored that part. Must be getting cynical in my old age ;)
You can wait 6 months, and pick up the required parts for half the cost, or even just buy an off the shelf system. I guess it depends which you value more; an immediate payback for the time you spent, or money in the bank and time saved.
Password security actually doesn't bother me that much.
Physical access to systems is a much more pressing concern. I work in a college, and there is no way I'd be able to enforce a strict password scheme in such an enviroment. Students can't remember a simple password, let alone something designed to beat a determined attacker.
So, rooms are locked, laptops are secured, and accounts are locked down so that any attacker hacking an account is left with nowhere to go.
Obviously, I enforce strict password schemes for myself and the rest of the ICT Support team. But for the entire user-base? Sadly, I don't have the time.
Hell, you can go further back than Freeserve if you want to find really crazy deals.
Remember Screaming.net? No monthly fee and no call charges between 6pm - 8am, all you had to do was change away from BT to Localtel.
Of course, the service was crap and iirc the support was pretty abysmal too.
Motto of the story? You get what you pay for. Whilst I think your idea has some merit to it, the idea that an ISP will 'share' money from Google just doesn't seem viable. Call me a cynic, but as far as I'm concerned, they want our cash, Google's cash, and when it comes to infrastructure, they'll happily take it from the Goverment as well.
And on that note, I'd better step off the soapbox!