Slashdot Mirror

The raw materials cost more than $10. According to this... http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/03/07/hnunstud y_1.html ...the average desktop(not laptop) pc requires more than 1.8 tons(!) of raw materials. Dirt costs more than $10 per ton. Unless they're making it out of garbage or air I think they're out of luck. And the cost or raw materials can only go up.

7 DOCUMENTED PROOFS/POINTS ABOUT OPERA, BEING FIREFOX'S SUPERIOR, on quite a few levels:

1.) Opera also has outperformed FireFox on speed, period, check this (most current and comprehensive browser vs. browser test I have ever found):

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win

SUMMARY FROM THE ARTICLE ON THE SPEEDTEST FROM THE URL ABOVE:

"So overall, Opera seems to be the fastest browser for windows. Firefox is not faster than Internet Explorer, except for scripting, but for standards support, security and features, it is a better choice. However, it is still not as fast as Opera, and Opera also offers a high level of standards support, security and features.

On Linux, Konqueror is the fastest for starting and viewing basic pages on KDE, but as soon as script or images are involved, or you want to use the back or forward buttons, or if you use Gnome, Opera is a faster choice, even though on KDE it will take a few seconds longer to start. Mozilla and Firefox give an overall good performance, but their script, cache handling and image-based page speed still cannot compare with Opera.

On Mac OS X, Opera and Safari are both very fast, with Safari 2 being faster at starting and rendering CSS, but with Opera still being distinguishably faster for rendering tables, scripting and history (especially compared with the much slower Safari 1.2). Camino is fast to start, but then it joins its sisters Mozilla and Firefox further down the list. Neither Mozilla, Firefox nor IE perform very well on Mac, being generally slower than on other operating systems"

(On the Windows Platform, in THAT test alone, it took 4 of 7 total categories... nuff said on that account! Considering 90% of the world's computers run Windows based Os' (hopefully Windows NT-based ones by now)? That's saying a HELL of a LOT!)

Opera (as you may read for yourselves above) even did great on the OTHER platforms too!

Now, some folks will say "But today's CPU's are so fast this does not matter" - ahem: BEG TO DIFFER, it matters! If a browser's faster & more efficient on slower CPU's ESPECIALLY (purely relative term here), it will still be faster on faster CPU's mhz or cores/h-t/smp-wise (especially if multithreaded & designed properly with non-blocking operations in multithread design used wisely).

2.) Opera also has addon widgets (just like the .xpi extensions firefox has):

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/08/001722 6

3.) AND OPERA IS ALSO FREE!

4.) Opera also had/has features before any other browser, that Mozilla/FireFox copied outright from it (tabs, anyone? Opera had tabbed browsing FAR before Mozilla/FireFox)

5.) Opera is more used than FireFox is, in "mobile devices", afaik (handhelds, etc. (not into them myself, but I wager this one is correct as well).

6.) Opera also has less vulnerabilities found than any other browser, over time. CHECK THIS:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/02/23/HNbrowse rvuln_1.html

(Opera is definitely the "least attacked/most secure" of the "big 3" browers'-wise (IE, FireFox/Mozilla/Opera) out there... unless someone can show me otherwise. Thanks for that info. IF you can provide it. Yes, it may only be by "security by obscurity", that IS a valid argument, but somehow, based on ALL of the above? I would wager, strongly, not. Not that it is the ONLY reason it is more secure than other webbrowsers that is.)

That all said, noted and documented, & aside? Opera vs. FireFox?? Opera, vs. FireFox? NO CONTEST! Opera wins on any front you can name...

7.) Opera, has passed the ACID2 test & afaik, did so before FireFox did (not sure

"No offense to opera, but its not as strong or as popular as firefox." - by Kryptonian Jor-El (970056) on Wednesday May 02, @10:11PM (#18966775)

That's not true (on the "as strong" portion of your statement) about Opera. Popularity is NOT a gauge of strength or being better. Nobody is accusing the masses who do not write code or analyze it of intelligence, but more of "following the crowd, and being with the 'in-crowd'" face it.

My evidences? Well, here you are, documented, & tested:

Opera, afaik, is the ONLY browser to pass the ACID test (yes, there is one called that), check it:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/03/12/1416222.shtml

Opera also has outperformed FireFox on speed, period, check this (most current and comprehensive browser vs. browser test I have ever found):

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win

Opera also has addon widgets (just like the .xpi extensions firefox has):

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/08/001722 6

Opera also has less vulnerabilities found than any other browser, over time. CHECK THIS:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/02/23/HNbrowse rvuln_1.html

That all said, noted and documented, & aside? Opera vs. FireFox??

(& it had/has features before any other browser, that Mozilla/FireFox copied outright from it (tabs, anyone? Opera had tabbed browsing FAR before Mozilla/FireFox))

AND OPERA IS ALSO FREE!

Opera, vs. FireFox? NO CONTEST! Opera wins on any front you can name...

APK

P.S.=> At least as far as technological superiority, & innovation. The trouble with many things today is, the best product or man for the job, does not always win. Especially in today's politically motivated, & "Public Relations Driven" world (whoever has the most monies, wins), & in our current "world of committees" (it's no longer a world of great men, but instead, a world of committees, imo)... apk

So, if they now only have to pay 7.5% of revenue, I think they'll be quite happy (and the RIAA will be spitting...)

I'm surprised most people here are commenting, yet they haven't read the original source of the story to understand what they're commenting on. This was not a virus they discovered. They're cyber criminals, out to make a buck, who opened their own Adwords account and ran ads that displayed links to trusted sites. The only problem was that you were first linked to an exploit server, which attempted to force download a keylogger onto your system. So you asked how the cost will be recouped, ie how can the bad guys profit from this? By stealing your bank account info and your money, among other things. InfoWorld has the most thorough coverage on this: http://weblog.infoworld.com/zeroday/archives/2007/ 04/google_adwords.html

Unlike Microsoft, which has never engaged in massive layoffs.

You sure have great role models.

Somehow, DOUBLECLICK is the biggest concern? Not a chance. This is media hype perpetuated by the competition crying foul. I really wish people would concern themselves with actual privacy issues. It's just advertising data, people.

Ti you it make seem like just advertising data, but it qualifies as stalking in Texas.

It's interesting that Homeland Security looked to someone from doubleclick to protect personal privacy.

It's kinda funny how marketing-speak changed the name "web bugs" to the almost religiously enlightened sounding "web beacons" that help track what you've read, and through your IP, where. They say you can opt out. That sets a cookie!
Web bugs can be in email, web pages, even some documents.

The combination of web bugs and other techniques can still mine considerable data even with cookies off or frequently deleted.

I generally have liked Google, but it seems this is not the only instance of them connecting with slime.

AMD was founded by Jerry Sanders, a high-flying salesman originally from Intel who never quite fitted in. In Andy's Grove's Bio of Intel, he describes Sanders as fast and loose and the AMD corporate culture akin to a Las Vegas Casino: Very extravagant and over the top. Nevertheless, AMD did produce some killer products which at the time made life hard for Intel.

AMD successfully played the market well, offering very fast CPUs for cheaper than Intel could muster. But recently they dropped the ball. Not only have they not come up with an answer to Intel's Core Duo, but AMD have been doing some bizarre stuff like taking over ATI, then announcing they would build DRM into ATI graphics cards. http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/03/28/14OPcurv e_1.html How is that going to reverse a declining market share? AMD should learn from the disaster Intel faced a few years ago when it wanted to build a CPUID into their chips that would allow tracking of customers. There was a backlash. Now here AMD are doing the same thing, at the same time their market share is declining?

Maybe they (and SONY) should fire their board and create a Slashdot forum to run the company. We could hardly do a worse job!

On the bright side Intel are turning out nice stuff these days and have said they intend to get into the 3D market again. Declining PC sales will hopefully keep their prices down. Even if AMD go down the tubes, we'll be ok... I hope.

Following layoffs and executive shuffles, Intel Corp. reported a third quarter profit Tuesday of US$1.3 billion, beating analysts' estimates, but still falling far short of its results last year. The company reported revenue of $8.7 billion, thanks in large part to the sale of 6 million of its new Core Microarchitecture chips for notebook PCs and servers. That generated earnings of $0.22 per share, stronger than the prediction of $0.18 per share earnings on revenue of $8.62 billion, according to analysts polled by Thomson Financial. The numbers were down 35 percent compared to Intel's profit in the third quarter of 2005,

Thank you for bringing in information that makes the case sound stronger. The Infoworld article really does have the deficiencies I and ShinmaWa stated. Reread it and see. Perhaps the Financial Times article should have been linked in the summary.

The "creating alliances between the companies" could very well mean that they know who they like to outsource to because they've had reliable service from them in the past. "... giving each other discounts and rebates" is common practice for large-volume purchases of products or services. "... not passing on rebates to the government" is not required unless the contract with the government agency states that the vendor will. The Infoworld article we were steered toward I don't believe actually stated the contracts were indeed worded that way.

The information you provided does present facts that look worse for the companies involved. The "improper payments" and the text about the Sun deal with World Wide Technologies specifically refer to "kickbacks", which the Infoworld article says the DOJ is claiming but doesn't say what the payments were for or why they were deemed to be kickbacks.

This doesn't make the parent post wrong. ShinmaWa stated that "no where in TFA does it say...", and you quoted a different article which makes points the Infoworld article didn't. From what the Ft article says, it does indeed look to be a long and interesting case if the companies don't settle up front. HP for one says they'll fight it, but for the right no-fault settlement, they'd probably pay the government instead of their lawyers.

I was under the impression that China was moving away from Windows...

:-/

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/07/22/ 020722opcurve.html

For all his success at bringing Microsoft's warring constituencies together, there are still things beyond Bill and Steve's control. "I was in a hotel in Sun Valley last week that was not wired," Ballmer recalls. "So I turned on my PC, and XP tells me there is a wireless network available. So I connect to something called Mountaineer.

"Well, I don't know what that is. But I VPN into Microsoft. It worked! I don't know whose broadband I used," he chuckles. "I didn't see it in Bill's room. I called him up and said, 'Hey, come over to my room.' So soon everyone is there and connecting to the Internet through my room."

Oh delicious irony. It only seems like yesterday when someone said:

"AMD plans to block access to the framebuffer in hardware to help enforce DRM schemes,
  such as allowing more restricted playback of Sony Blu-Ray disks.
  They can pry my Print Screen key from my cold, dead fingers."

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/03/28/14OPcurv e_1.html

Groklaw; Better head down to Staples for some legal pads and boxes of biros. You're gunna need them! ;-)

If this trend continues and Western technology companies continue to pander to DRM and other silly schemes to prevent us from the freedom to use our computers, it's only a matter of time before cheap, powerful, and open Eastern manufacturers (read Chinese manufacturers) gain marketshare in the U.S. and elsewhere. The Chinese are already experimenting with their own CPUs (see http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/10/18/HNintell audschina_1.html) and will no doubt be happy to increase their revenues.

This all shows the wonderful practice of choosing systems based on gut reactions and petty politics.

Petty politics or genuine concern that Microsoft and Novell are preparing to give the FLOSS community a good shafting? It's all in the semantics.

If you switched, or spend appreciable time bashing or advocating a boycott of SuSE because of the Novell/MS deal, you are a moron. I'm sorry. You aren't making any sort of choice based on the merits of the system, just on politics and the fact that you dislike microsoft. The agreement is harmless to "the community." It's an indemnity agreement! That's about the most benign thing two companies could possibly sign.

No. That agreement is tantamount to Novell saying: 'yes, GNU/Linux does infringe upon Microsoft patents.' It gives Ballmer evidence to extort money from GNU/Linux users, will probably be used in future lawsuits by Microsoft and has been the basis of much anti-GNU/Linux FUD.

What is particularly bad for the community is the indemnity stops with the Novell customers, the development community is very much left out in the cold. I'm scared of releasing my code under a FLOSS license because of patent FUD. It might be an indemnity agreement, but it's a thinly veiled threat too.

The bad part is that the reaction (as we saw here, sometimes humorously disinformed) is unfairly hurting a valid (some would say good) choice in the linux market (choice is good!)

You speak of choice, yet the Microsoft/Novell deal has taken customers away from other distros (for all the wrong reasons). The whole point of the deal is to eliminate choice and leave Microsoft with just one competitor to deal with: Novell.

If a company kills babies, I'm not going to buy their products. In fact I'll actively make others aware of their actions, this is not petty, I would consider it my moral duty. As a geek Novell and Microsoft have done something far worse: gone against the spirit (if not the letter) of the GPL. It is therefore my moral duty to boycott their products and advise everyone (who would know what I'm talking about) to do the same.

VISTA hacked again? In about three years I predict this OS will actually be usable due to helper apps which allow end users to use the computer as they see fit, instead of how MS and friends think you should use it. DRM is such a waste of human resources, but I guess this is the game we have to play.

Bill Gates wants more cheap labor to waste of useless software. What a waste of human intellect and talent. How about making the computer RUN faster, be more intuitive, and reliable?

thats right the website was hacked the other day and the .ANI exploit was stuck in there
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/04/06/HNasuste ksitehack_1.html

Although I never visited the site because it was slow to begin with and had the worst download rates.

Netcraft says for the asus.com website that it was running Windows Server 2003 but other foregin ASUS sites were running a mix of Linux/BSD.

Here are some links to some documentation:

http://images.apple.com/pro/pdf/Cin_Disp30_report. pdf
http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/008 344.html
http://www.petefreitag.com/item/552.cfm

enjoy

This strikes me as low for a brand new windows OS

I get the joke, but Vista seems to do rather well on retail (at least that's what big retailers say here). And MSFT commented somewhere (says the article in the link) that Vista sold more licenses in the first month after release than XP sold in twice that time.

Parts of the kernel are licensed "GPL version 2 or later" (which can roll over automatically), and a lot of the lines of code are owned by a few large companies. So you can get a large percentage of the code just by getting Red Hat, IBM, Intel, Novell, etc. on board. That's not all the code, but it would represent a substantial amount of the code without having to go "door to door" with the contributors.

When the Commission began its antitrust investigation in 1999 Microsoft held between 35 percent and 40 percent market share. By 2004 it rose to around 60 percent and now it stands at between 70 percent and 75 percent.

Does this ring as a stall tactic to anyone else? Last article that I have seen is that MS owes: 281 million euro's .

Now MS makes about 10 to 12 billion in a quarter. This is something likes a months of pay for Microsoft. How much money have they made from their customers in the EU; while going from 35% to 70-75%? Not a bad payoff for being a monopoly.

Any thoughts?

Here's a working link to the article: http://weblog.infoworld.com/geeks/archives/2007/02 /beef_up_your_wi.html

Does anyone remember Rav antivirus?
It was a very good antivirus program developed by Gecad, a romanian company. It had support for Linux, BSDs, Solaris and it was highly appreciated in its days. It's so sad that Microsoft killed this fine product, removing support for rival platforms and turning it into this lame thing called Onecare.

Give me one example of a company being forced to release previously proprietary software under the GNU GPL. One.

Do a Google search will ya?

How about Cisco for example, uhm? Or Linksys:

In June 2003 some folks on the Linux Kernel Mailing List sniffed around the WRT54G and found that its firmware was based on Linux components. Because Linux is released under the GNU General Public License, or GPL, the terms of the license obliged Linksys to make available the source code to the WRT54G firmware. As most router firmware is proprietary code, vendors have no such obligation. It remains unclear whether Linksys was aware of the WRT54G's Linux lineage, and its associated source requirements, at the time they released the router. But ultimately, under outside pressure to deliver on their legal obligation under the GPL, Linksys open sourced the WRT54G firmware in July 2003.

Now, you could say, the open-sourced firmware was never proprietary to begin with somehow, but that's just semantics — clearly, Linksys thought of it as proprietary and weren't planning to release the sources until the outside pressure made them do it. I'm not aware of anybody benefiting from this open-sourcing, however, and this lack of benefits (from vendors being wrestled into releasing their "GPL-tainted" code) was my main point.

I dare you.

Now that I've successfully responded to your dare, what will you do? If you are a female, you can scratch my back for 5 minutes. If you are a male, you can take out my garbage — once, this Monday. Make your pick.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/24/HNappled elllead_1.html

http://www.becta.org.uk/satisfactionsurvey/2001/de sktop/summary.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,122226-page,1/ar ticle.html

That was a grand total of 2 minute of reasearch and dragging and dropping the URL into here. If I could find this much in 2 minutes, it looks pretty good for Apple in more detailed research.

I believe that doesn't actually work. The addresses for Microsoft's update servers are hard coded elsewhere in the system. See this story for a brief overview.

No, IBM does not want to compete with Intel on the x86 market.

That's an argument that you don't need to accept the EULA. It may or may not be true (note that the retailer doesn't necessarily have legal authority to grant you that license), but that doesn't mean EULAs aren't contracts. Here for example is a SCOTUS case where an EULA was treated as a contract.

I don't think this is possible under US law. But in most european countries the law is harsher on telling lies in an attempt to distort the market. In the SCO case, a settlement after a temporary restraining order on Germany meant that SCO could no longer spread their lies in Germany.

You can hold your breath now, I believe someone had already done it. Will I be sued if I google hacking Vista?
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/02/01/HNvistas peechbug_1.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128115-c,hackers /article.html (okay so this isn't hacking per se, but a crack to make your system more vulnerable. Vista 'prevents' this with it's 'impressive' security)

So what are others finding? Our Cisco rep sent us this clarification:

Response to Infoworld article about CTA Open Source

Q. What is this document?

A. This document is a response to the Network World article dated Feb 8, 2007 regarding CTA Open Source

Q. What is the article about? Where is it available?

A. Article is available at

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/02/07/HNciscot ca_1.html

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=network_securit y&articleId=9010881&taxonomyId=142&intsrc=kc_top

Q. Is Network World article correct that Cisco will open source CTA in 2 months?

A. No, statements in the article are incorrect and Cisco does not have plans to open source CTA. We apologize for any confusion resulting from the interview and article and any inconvenience it caused.

Q. What are Cisco's plans for open source of CTA?

A. Cisco currently has no plans or dates for open-sourcing CTA.

In the real world, the traditional methods too improve and unless they can maintain a 100x lead continually the new technology flops.

This might be the obvious conclusion if Vertica were targeting the mass market and trying to compete directly with Oracle, SQL Server, or DB2, but they are not. TFA says Vertica is targeted at the data warehousing market, which is a very specific application area that can be better served with niche products than with the traditional general-purpose relational RDBMSs. Based on what I've read, it sounds like Vertica is addressing a market similar to that of Greenplum. These guys are trying use open source to go up against the entrenched proprietary players, such as Teradata, that charge literal millions of dollars for software to run big data warehouses.

C'mon we know you are talking about Bob Metcalfe

If the GPL is so useless, why do you think that Sun has chosen it for Java and is seriously considering it for Solaris? I'm not saying that using BSD code is stealing, I'm just saying that thre is a responsible way to use open source software.

However, Apple has closed down the source to the Intel port of the Darwin / OS X kernel. They did this because they're more concerned that people may figure out how to use their software on non-Apple branded hardware than they are about open innovation. But that doesn't stop them from using open software in their own products.

Enjoy your propietary OS, fanboy.

...by the fact that in recent years he's reduced to trolling the Internet by making up terms like "Open Sores Movement". From Wikipedia:

The Open Source Movement's ideology is utopian balderdash [... that] reminds me of communism. [...] Linux [is like] organic software grown in utopia by spiritualists [...] When they bring organic fruit to market, you pay extra for small apples with open sores -- the Open Sores Movement. When [Windows 2000] gets here, goodbye Linux.

He might have got it right decades ago, but these days, he's just another clueless pundit troll.

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/99/06/21/ 990621opmetcalfe.html

enjoy...

From 2004 : " Uppsala universitet betalar mindre än en tiondel av ordinarie pris för Office. " , which translate to English as "The University of Uppsala pays less than a tenth of the ordinary price for {MS} Office"

Word on the street was that UU was going to go completely FOSS, or at least completely non-MS, on its workstations. Many other institutions were heading that way until 2000-2002. Turku was a notable case, but there were quite a few others that weren't able to move even that far before MSofters flew in and thus didn't get as much press.

Other bad decisions were made around that time, too: People got sold a lot of junkj hardware, too: gross income deduction in exchange for last year's hardware, at this years full retail prices, delivered 6 to 12 months from now. That gross income reduction cuts rather deeply into the pensions, given the new pension system.

It would be useful, though nearly impossible, to find out all the places that have been trying to dump M$ junk since 1998, but have been threatened with raids, or threatened with audits, or given 95%+ discounts in order to keep or extend the lock-in. As you can see it's been part of the business model for a long time. The BSA/FAST raids seem not just about licensing but about even getting rid of non-MS commercial software.

Duh, forgot myself to add company: Peugeot Citroën.
News article itself here: http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/01/30/HNpeugeo tlinux_1.html.

Seems there's been a lot of heat around Google.de lately.

On the bright side for the new owner, one had to wonder if he'll simply attempt to sell the domain, or keep it for his own G-Mail app.

Considering the amount of incoming links, that has to be the best SEO deal ever!

I'm always confused by the way people claim Microsoft is an evil company. The leadership of Microsoft has never been evil. To the contrary, they do tremendous good for all sorts of charitable causes.

Well, I always thought the same about MS... I do not dislike its products although I dislike its MONOPOLY PRACTICES. Aside of that, as everyone else said we could argue that Microsoft and Bill Gate's foundation are completely separate thing... ... at least I thought so, unfortunately it happens that Mr. Gates wisely used his "unevil" foundation to /push/ my country into using Microsoft's solutions instead of Open Source ones... now *THAT* is bad...

You can read about it on this article . You might recognize the name of Miguel de Icaza who was one of the principals on the e-Mexico initative.

an interesting snippet:
"I thought I was going to be the only person for Linux," de Icaza said. "But HP surprised me, IBM surprised me and Sun surprised me."

Despite general agreement that open-source technologies would be more flexible and cost efficient, Mexico's Linux revolution was quashed after Fox met with Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, according to de Icaza.

"Bill Gates flew down to Mexico, and they announced a donation of $30 million dollars ... and Linux was dropped," de Icaza said.

And here is where he used his nice foundation:
The software maker has also allotted $10 million to train workers in small and mid-size businesses, along with an additional grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the country's Vamos México program to be used to move the country's libraries online. .

Note that this "Vamos Mexico" foundation is being investigaed for fraud and corruption in Mexico.

So yeah, I used to defend Bill Gate's foundation with the premise that, even though the Corporation "Microsoft" was bad, that did not mean the foundation was bad... but the e-Mexico issue made me change my views.

As for your question:
Where exactly does the evil come from? How do a group of people who are not evil get together and do something evil?

My thought has always been that a Corporation is evil by definition, because the objective of any corporation is to profit, no matter what they do. You should see The Corporation film. They explain it very well. Basically, a corporation has all the properties and rights a human been has... except that it does NOT have a "soul" or "conscience" or whatever you want to call it. That is why it has no "minimal ethics" and you see corporations going to the end of the third world where slaving is allowed in order to maximize their profits which is what they do (Nike, Starbucks, Apple, etc, etc etc...).

In an apparent response to industry rumors that SCO may become the target of a hostile takeover bid, SCO's Board of Directors has implemented a "shareholders rights plan" designed to deter unsolicited takeover attempts, McBride said. "We believe that this will basically keep any outside offers or potential takeovers that are not in the best interest of the shareholders at bay," he said. The plan, which was adopted by the board on Aug. 10, gives SCO's board the right to determine the "fair value" of the company in the event of a takeover attempt, McBride said.

Back in 2000, after a BSA audit that resulted in a $90,000 settlement, guitar parts manufacturer Ernie Ball switched to Linux saying "I think that we were so driven to find a solution that the worst reality to us would have been to give up and go back to the people up in Redmond," : http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/11/27/ 021127hnerniball.html?s=IDGNS

It happened to Ernie Ball (which makes guitar strings)

"Ernie Ball ended up settling with the BSA over claims related to use of unlicensed software to the tune of $90,000. Ball said, however, that he emerged from the ordeal critical of the way the problem is approached. The audit was prompted by an anonymous call to the BSA's antipiracy hotline by a disgruntled ex-employee, and concluded when armed U.S. Marshals shut down his IT system during a raid of the company's offices, he said."

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/11/27/ 021127hnerniball.html?s=IDGNS

Either that, or go ahead and actually follow through with the threat...

Whenever someone tries to implement a doc-to-pdf functionality, they get threatened to have their pants sued off... Adobe doesn't do "open".

You are right! I shall retire off the proceeds from referring people to the spamassassion man page!

More seriously, I'm not saying that I can solve the world's spam problem, just that a motivated person can make spam a non-issue for themselves.

Actually I already posted my config in reply to another comment, but more importantly you have to feed it properly.

Are you joking? Take Verizon, for instance. The CEO makes $11.5 million. Annual operating revenue that year was on the order of $75 billion. Or in other words, 0.015% of revenue went to pay the CEO's salary. It's a pittance compared to their income, and he's the most important damn person in the company.

Of course corporations are greedy. That's unquestioned; they're supposed to be greedy. But CEO income has practically nothing to do with it. It's a minuscule fraction of money spent.

This is where Apple could step up to the plate with iTunes as a conduit for getting data onto a similar Apple ebook device. This could even be a perfect feature for more capable tablets - if it did the media reading parts right, and had a nice multi-touch interface (à la iPhone), it'd be a lot closer to a Knowledge Navigator than the readers we currently have. But I'd be happy with just the ebook.

An iTunes store partnered with a capable, very thin ebook, would be a great combination, and a guarantee that all the parts would work together, with polish, not just-about-work-if-the-stars-are-aligned. As for content - they could partner with Gutenberg and offer all the gutenberg stuff for download to kick-start their library. There's a lot of good stuff on there. Then later bring in Google and real publishers, most of whom have realised that time is running out on their current distribution model. It would be difficult for Google to do this on their own because none of the ebook manufacturers are producing something which will work seamlessly with whatever software they put out. The only way it can work for them is if they do it on the web, and then wait for ebook/tablets to have wifi.

What this sector needs is someone who's willing to take both hardware and software (on the device and the computer) seriously.

Also see InfoWorld.

And see Tech Republic.

Then go read everything written by Norman Matloff.