Re:Why the DoD? Possibilities....
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 2
Ok, this is a little paranoid, but still, the point is valid. Personally, I don't look for quite so sinister a reason why the gov is interested. I think that maybe the DOD is actually screening for another group looking for information which may not want the fact that they are monitoring to come out. The FBI for instance looking for how many times someone visted (or tried) a bomb making site. Not so they can prevent the next Columbine, but so that they can see how prevelant the thinking is among kids. I doubt just because they are the DOD that they get any extra information from Bess than anyone else.
Next point. No one has really brought up the issue that this company has yet to make a profit. We now know what happens to dot.com's when they can't make money for an extended period of time. And, we know what happens when the failed dot.com has to sell it's assets. The article points out that to get the aggregate anonymous data, they have to collect a lot more data which I doubt is deleted as soon as the anonymous report is compiled. So what happens if this company fails? Do they destroy their database or do they try and sell it? The gov is interested, and so is every kids marketer in the known universe (I think many come from outside our galaxy anyway) as well as those in peripheral industries. The anonymous data is innocuous really, but the problem is later when the not so innocuous data is in question and is a commodity. Then what happens?
Yes, I agree with the realism and how this movie is wonderfully different from most others. I thought this was wonderful in the fact that it was a comic book movie that didn't tell the story with violence, didn't try and make every other word something nasty, but rather made the characters human. All the way through, I was enthralled with the story. However, and this is unlike the 6th sense, the ending SUCKED! It was this wonderful story that they couldn't finish in time so they pasted that piece of crap on and released it. I was planning on when I would get my name into the preorder list at express.com until the last 5 minutes. The last minute seemed like it was done by some intern who got his or her big break. Anyway, just my two cents.
Yeah, I have often wondered the same thing but to no avail. It would be like understanding what it would be like to see with 4 types of receptors instead of 3. There is no means of discovery on this one and therefore will remain a mystery of the universe much like the genious of the writers of the Simpsons.
I dunno, but like the intern said, this is important. I believe that the method for incorporating drivers into the kernel should be modified so that there is a very nicely defined way to include non open source drivers and IP. I think that as long as companies are investing all of the research dollars, they should not be forced to give up what they spent so much time, money, and energy building. I vote for good, solid drivers with an easy way to incorporate them without a kernel recompile. Just my two cents anyway.
When is Microsoft going to stop being reactionary and predatory and start providing meaningful solutions to problems. C# isn't going to solve any new problems. Java, PERL, et. al. are already doing this. Another case of Microsft missing the boat and doing something bass-ackwards.
It is disturbing that most people think that Corporate America knows what is best for the internet by not acting to protect individual interests.
But a point. Say NSI does auction of a trademarked name (not copyrighted)? Say I buy it with(out) realizing that it is trademarked. Well, the most likely finish to the story is that I lose it to corporate lawyer crap. But, trademarks must be defended and protected to be valid. Trademark law says that the holder must actively protect their trademark. Therefore, this could be seen by a forward looking judge as a miscue of those rights and simply say "There is a lack in the trademark value to Corp. X and therefore, the new holder retains rights." Not likely, but possible given current Trademark law.
Re:They forgot teh BEST use for an Altoids tin
on
Quickielanche
·
· Score: 1
I dunno, I prefer mine smelling a little less minty.
I very much appreciated and enjoyed your letter. It was well thought out and your points are, in my opinion, mostly accurate. However, I must add these thoughts (my own two cents, take it as you like).
Linux and OSS are not in the same paradigm as other projects. I must disagree with this section of your letter.
"As Linux is embraced by more organizations, and used in more ways that are crucial, the demands upon you will increase. New feature ideas and bug reports will no longer go onto a 'wish list'; they will go onto a 'hot list'. You will face pressure to add 50 new items to the next release, when it really ought to have 10. Wealthy organizations, accustomed to getting their way, will demand impossible schedules from you, and then complain if the quality is not perfect. Some readers have suggested to me that the open source method of software development causes project management issues to evaporate; that the projects manage themselves. This is a fantasy. The open source method, while it does solves some problems, raises new ones. You will be managing a large public programming project with conflicting demands, tight schedules, and the need for high quality. You have to figure out how to do this well. Hopefully, you can invent and master new techniques for software project management within the open source method. But if you don't, the complexity of this task will sink your whole endeavor."
Yes, as corporate users begin to need these projects instead of just wanting them, their demands on OSS projects will change. But, as I see it, these two schools of thought (corporate v. OSS) will come to head and instead of one simply squashing the other (the current reigning corporate mentality of customer first through the latest and greatest) as you postulate, there will be a middle ground. I don't know where that is, but there is too much momentum on either side for either one to simply pass away. And then, the corporate mindsets that refuse to budge on the 'We are big, you are not' mentality will suffer and the OSS projects that say, 'We are in charge, leave us alone' will see their projects ignored and passed up for the more flexible competing projects and even some of the non OSS projects. As is always the case in the free market, flexible lives while rigid or static dies. Survival of the fitest so to speak.
I just thought that I would write and tell you that I appreciate your letter. Many people only see the extreme and forget that the majority lives somewhere in the middle. Most Linux advocates want to see something better than the status quo in computing. Linux was the bandwagon to jump on, but it isn't the end of the road, you are right. My hope is that Linux is the stepping stone to something even greater and more exciting whether that is Linux, HURD, BSD, Solaris, Be, or even a product from an evolved Micrsoft. But for now, one must look beyond the fringe and focus on the strongest parts of this new way of thinking.
I disagree. I think that, given the new state of development, if MS puts a player out for *nix, then they will probably move closer to owning streaming media standards. In this case, the more desktops this player sits on, the more content produced solely for this player, and the more content, the more desktops and suddenly, all streaming media is MS based (blatant overeaction, but....). Then they own the content providers and also, to some extent, how streaming media is implemented in Linux. Does the Linux community want MS involved in its future development path? Hey, Real, how's about pushing the *nix envelope. I would pay for a good fully compat media player for Linux. Make MS work to improve.
So, I guess I don't particularly think this is good for the Linux cause. MS bloatware is notorius for poor design and implementation. UI design is not their strong point, and I don't want to be tied to a MS player for everything under the sun. OSS isn't necessary, but open standards here are definately the way to go.
What I would love to see is MS do other types of software. Office, IE, and NetMeeting would be great, not because they are cutting edge, but because everyone uses them. They don't define any sort of standard or means, but rather just provide a service. If MS ports Office to Linux, then there are more choices and you have a reason for business to jump on the bandwagon. NetMeeting would be wonderful as then I could dump Windows off my laptop and still vid chat with my friends in Seattle. This is where we want MS. Not forcing, but providing solid or at least viable alternatives. I am sure they are capable, they just have to reprioritize and focus on the software instead of the people using it (I know, but I can dream). Yet, why give up the few reasons for the continuing viability of windows? What we need is a Utopia.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, this is a little paranoid, but still, the point is valid. Personally, I don't look for quite so sinister a reason why the gov is interested. I think that maybe the DOD is actually screening for another group looking for information which may not want the fact that they are monitoring to come out. The FBI for instance looking for how many times someone visted (or tried) a bomb making site. Not so they can prevent the next Columbine, but so that they can see how prevelant the thinking is among kids. I doubt just because they are the DOD that they get any extra information from Bess than anyone else.
Next point. No one has really brought up the issue that this company has yet to make a profit. We now know what happens to dot.com's when they can't make money for an extended period of time. And, we know what happens when the failed dot.com has to sell it's assets. The article points out that to get the aggregate anonymous data, they have to collect a lot more data which I doubt is deleted as soon as the anonymous report is compiled. So what happens if this company fails? Do they destroy their database or do they try and sell it? The gov is interested, and so is every kids marketer in the known universe (I think many come from outside our galaxy anyway) as well as those in peripheral industries. The anonymous data is innocuous really, but the problem is later when the not so innocuous data is in question and is a commodity. Then what happens?
Yes, I agree with the realism and how this movie is wonderfully different from most others. I thought this was wonderful in the fact that it was a comic book movie that didn't tell the story with violence, didn't try and make every other word something nasty, but rather made the characters human. All the way through, I was enthralled with the story. However, and this is unlike the 6th sense, the ending SUCKED! It was this wonderful story that they couldn't finish in time so they pasted that piece of crap on and released it. I was planning on when I would get my name into the preorder list at express.com until the last 5 minutes. The last minute seemed like it was done by some intern who got his or her big break. Anyway, just my two cents.
Yeah, I have often wondered the same thing but to no avail. It would be like understanding what it would be like to see with 4 types of receptors instead of 3. There is no means of discovery on this one and therefore will remain a mystery of the universe much like the genious of the writers of the Simpsons.
I dunno, but like the intern said, this is important. I believe that the method for incorporating drivers into the kernel should be modified so that there is a very nicely defined way to include non open source drivers and IP. I think that as long as companies are investing all of the research dollars, they should not be forced to give up what they spent so much time, money, and energy building. I vote for good, solid drivers with an easy way to incorporate them without a kernel recompile. Just my two cents anyway.
When is Microsoft going to stop being reactionary and predatory and start providing meaningful solutions to problems. C# isn't going to solve any new problems. Java, PERL, et. al. are already doing this. Another case of Microsft missing the boat and doing something bass-ackwards.
It is disturbing that most people think that Corporate America knows what is best for the internet by not acting to protect individual interests.
But a point. Say NSI does auction of a trademarked name (not copyrighted)? Say I buy it with(out) realizing that it is trademarked. Well, the most likely finish to the story is that I lose it to corporate lawyer crap. But, trademarks must be defended and protected to be valid. Trademark law says that the holder must actively protect their trademark. Therefore, this could be seen by a forward looking judge as a miscue of those rights and simply say "There is a lack in the trademark value to Corp. X and therefore, the new holder retains rights." Not likely, but possible given current Trademark law.
I dunno, I prefer mine smelling a little less minty.
I very much appreciated and enjoyed your letter. It was well thought out and your points are, in my opinion, mostly accurate. However, I must add these thoughts (my own two cents, take it as you like).
Linux and OSS are not in the same paradigm as other projects. I must disagree with this section of your letter.
"As Linux is embraced by more organizations, and used in more ways that are crucial, the demands upon you will increase. New feature ideas and bug reports will no longer go onto a 'wish list'; they will go onto a 'hot list'. You will face pressure to add 50 new items to the next release, when it really ought to have 10. Wealthy organizations, accustomed to getting their way, will demand impossible schedules from you, and then complain if the quality is not perfect.
Some readers have suggested to me that the open source method of software development causes project management issues to evaporate; that the projects manage themselves. This is a fantasy. The open source method, while it does solves some problems, raises new ones. You will be managing a large public programming project with conflicting demands, tight schedules, and the need for high quality. You have to figure out how to do this well. Hopefully, you can invent and master new techniques for software project management within the open source method. But if you don't, the complexity of this task will sink your whole endeavor."
Yes, as corporate users begin to need these projects instead of just wanting them, their demands on OSS projects will change. But, as I see it, these two schools of thought (corporate v. OSS) will come to head and instead of one simply squashing the other (the current reigning corporate mentality of customer first through the latest and greatest) as you postulate, there will be a middle ground. I don't know where that is, but there is too much momentum on either side for either one to simply pass away. And then, the corporate mindsets that refuse to budge on the 'We are big, you are not' mentality will suffer and the OSS projects that say, 'We are in charge, leave us alone' will see their projects ignored and passed up for the more flexible competing projects and even some of the non OSS projects. As is always the case in the free market, flexible lives while rigid or static dies. Survival of the fitest so to speak.
I just thought that I would write and tell you that I appreciate your letter. Many people only see the extreme and forget that the majority lives somewhere in the middle. Most Linux advocates want to see something better than the status quo in computing. Linux was the bandwagon to jump on, but it isn't the end of the road, you are right. My hope is that Linux is the stepping stone to something even greater and more exciting whether that is Linux, HURD, BSD, Solaris, Be, or even a product from an evolved Micrsoft. But for now, one must look beyond the fringe and focus on the strongest parts of this new way of thinking.I disagree. I think that, given the new state of development, if MS puts a player out for *nix, then they will probably move closer to owning streaming media standards. In this case, the more desktops this player sits on, the more content produced solely for this player, and the more content, the more desktops and suddenly, all streaming media is MS based (blatant overeaction, but....). Then they own the content providers and also, to some extent, how streaming media is implemented in Linux. Does the Linux community want MS involved in its future development path? Hey, Real, how's about pushing the *nix envelope. I would pay for a good fully compat media player for Linux. Make MS work to improve.
So, I guess I don't particularly think this is good for the Linux cause. MS bloatware is notorius for poor design and implementation. UI design is not their strong point, and I don't want to be tied to a MS player for everything under the sun. OSS isn't necessary, but open standards here are definately the way to go.
What I would love to see is MS do other types of software. Office, IE, and NetMeeting would be great, not because they are cutting edge, but because everyone uses them. They don't define any sort of standard or means, but rather just provide a service. If MS ports Office to Linux, then there are more choices and you have a reason for business to jump on the bandwagon. NetMeeting would be wonderful as then I could dump Windows off my laptop and still vid chat with my friends in Seattle. This is where we want MS. Not forcing, but providing solid or at least viable alternatives. I am sure they are capable, they just have to reprioritize and focus on the software instead of the people using it (I know, but I can dream). Yet, why give up the few reasons for the continuing viability of windows? What we need is a Utopia.