Let's see now - how many online video services does Viacom own and operate? More than one; I'll leave the names for others to fill in, it's enough for this message to establish that they're actively competing with YouTube.
With that background in place their lawsuit looks a bit different, doesn't it? They're suing YouTube for not doing more than the law requires in policing videos on their site. That's also more than Viacom does in policing videos on the sites they own, too.
So call it a copyright suit all you want, but it's really Viacom using the courts to beat up on a competitor. What they're claiming is noting more than what their "legal" department could scratch up on short notice.
I really hope YouTube defends themselves vigorously and makes an example of Viacom. And I can also hope that the courts lay some heavy sanctions on Viacom for misusing the legal system in this way.
So one of the old-guard media companies (Viacom) isn't satisfied with their slow descent to oblivion and wants to speed things up a bit? If they pursue this nonsense, they'll gain little if anything - and lose much, much, much more. Between loss of good will and huge legal bills, it should knock a year or more off of their death spiral.
And how nice of them to step out from behind some industry assosiation and act directly - that makes it easy to tell who the players are.
It's just another round in the ongoing battle between those who profit from controlling the production and distribution of audio / video / text and the modern world. The internet killed their lock on access to entertainment and the media companies are fighting for their lives. It's a lost cause; they can't win. But they'll make lots of noise as they fight against inevitability.
After personal experience with one too many Sony CD drives (computer, home stereo, clock radio) that died before their time - but not before the warranty expired, my attitude about Sony started to change. Not better-than-average equipment, just more shoddy Asian electronic crap.
Then - as promised by their leadership ("we'll firewall it at the PC!") they embedded a rootkit on music CDs. This criminal act, followed by their arrogant defense of this action, proved to me that they are nothing more than the lowest level of corporate scum.
So I made a choice - no more money to Sony. Hasn't hurt a bit; I've spent freely on electronics and entertainment and don't miss Sony a bit.
Those who haven't learned yet are doomed to suffer at Sony's hands - Sony hasn't learned their lesson yet. They don't have a public relations problem, they have a corporate ethics problem. I don't see anything that indicates any change in this situation at any time in the forseeable future.
Maybe if Microsoft offered competitive wages and treated its employees well this wouldn't be an issue. However, to better generate obscene levels of profit, Bill and company have chosen to lie, cheat, and steal. If you think the way they've treated the American consumer is bad - you should see what they do to their employees.
This only goes just so far, though. Before long, all the people with the skills you need have heard about your business style and become hard to hire. That doesn't mean that there aren't an abundance of skilled employees that could fill your openings - it just means that they don't want to work for Microsoft.
So companies like Microsoft love the H1B program. They can employ immigrants far less expensively than American workers - under conditions that are indistinguishable from slavery.
But that's not what the linked article is about. We're talking about illegal immigrants here - what possible interest in this could Microsoft have - unless their business depends upon employing undocumented illegal aliens. What does Bill know that he's not talking about that would lead him to issue such a public statement?
A look back at the recent history of American cellphone manufacturers can be informative. For years, the cell stores have had shelves full of "yawn" phones - the kind of phone you end up with, not the one you want to buy. And as the turkeys slouch out of the stores the manufacturers barely scrape by - until someone "hits" the trend point.
Phones like the Motorola Star-Tac or the Motorola Razr weren't excellent performers - but they were stylish and unique. Because of that, they sold huge numbers of these phones at (initially) very high prices. Remember $1,000 Star-Tacs? I do...
I don't think anyone can deny that Apple has hit the mark for a stylish and trendy yet functional cell phone. It's got all the ingredients of a massive seller - and sufficient marketing (Apple and AT&T) behind it to insure success.
Watch for lines of customers with $600 in their hands at the doors of the AT&T stores on release day. Then, as time goes by the phone will be sold at a series of declining price points - pausing at each level to fill demand at that price.
How many Razrs have been sold at this point? The IPhone is a better product in every way.
The problem is NOT that Microsoft (or other tech companies) can't find qualified applicants. Their "problem" is more specific than that - what they can't find are qualified applicants that are under 40 and will work long shifts for hamburger-flipper wages - and no overtime.
There's plenty of unemployed people right here in the US that are fully qualified to fill these positions. If these corporations would simply pay market rates - and stop the discrimination and abuse - they'd be able to fill every empty seat with experienced employees.
On a level playing field, this is what they'd have to do. Treat the employees right or they'll go work for someone else. But these corporations don't want to play by the rules. Forget those nasty federal and state laws about discrimination and fair labor standards; they'll just pay off some politicians to create a special category of employees and call it H1B. Very handy; now they can import foreigners and use them essentially as slave labor. Yes, slave labor. If you can't quit or change jobs what would YOU call it?
Why am I not surprised that they want to expand this practice? The constant crying about "We need to be competitive" should be a warning sign.
I've got a better idea: these corporations should bring themselves into FULL compliance with all federal and state labor laws and pay their employees according to the prevailing market rate. And if they can't do this and remain competitive, their business plan isn't workable and they should either fix the problems or shut down.
Let's see now; Microsoft has a long history of legal problems because of the way they treat their employees. Now they need to increase the number of imported indentured servants to remain competitive. Nothing new here; same old story.
Microsoft has a long history of crushing any company they saw as a competitor. Not just outcompeting, crushing. It's their modus operandi.
Now they've identified Linux as a competitor. And they're embarking on a campaign of FUD to soften their competitor up for crushing. This time it's different, though. Linux isn't a company or a person (not even Linus) - it's a collaborative effort of hundreds or thousands of developers all over the world. Individually they may be "weak" but as Linux they're very, very strong. Strong enough to stand up to Microsoft - and deal that monopolist some real damage.
SCO was a test case; use those fools in Utah to run a feint against a perceived foe. That's not turning out well; their patsy is about to have their hind parts handed to them in court. The resultant smoking crater should be informative to Ballmer & Co., but it's not likely they're sufficiently clueful to walk away from a bad end.
So they'll continue to rattle sabres - and when Ballmer & Co. whip themselves up to a sufficient level of courage to do battle with the Linux beast, they'll get their hind parts handed to them as well. It won't be a pretty battle and many, many outsiders will be called upon to assist the Microsofties in their campaign. Ultimately, it won't make any difference. They're going to set themselves against the vast army of developers and be consumed in the resulting deflagragration.
Watch carefully - Ballmer & Co. are experts in decimating their competition. They've never imagined that they'd come up against an implacable foe much, much larger than themselves. That day is coming very soon and the IT world will never be the same afterward.
If a company sells an item to a customer for a price that is below their cost - they made a mistake. It's their mistake, and they suffer the loss - it's part of the "cost of doing business". Once they've accepted payment and delivered the goods, the deal is complete.
An ethical company would learn from their mistake and avoid selling things at a loss in the future.
A less-than-ethical company would attempt to pass the cost of their mistake on to their customers. That's another mistake that'll affect their bottom line - as people see how they handle the situation and choose to patronize a different store.
Those who say that the customers are in some way responsible for the company's mistake - it was the company that set the price and the company willingly entered into the transaction at that price.
If you really want to pay them the difference then go ahead - just be aware that you are under absolutely no obligation to do so.
Here I am in Silicon Valley - arguably the most connected area in the USA. You'd think that we'd have it good here...
Choices? Well, there's the cable company (Comcast) and a few DSL resellers. Those resellers are all selling PacBell DSL service, so technically there's just one DSL provider as well.
Back when I moved into this house I tried to get DSL - Earthlink had a good offer. After weeks of missed connections and contradicting stories they told me I was too far from the DSLAM and cancelled my order. Covad was much more efficient in running me around the phone tree to the "too far out" conclusion. Finally I went directly to PacBell - and surprise, I was well within range. They shipped an install kit almost immediately and the installer followed a few days later.
So I've got what they call "Business Class" DSL service. A whopping 1.5 Mbps down and 128 Kbps up. WooHoo! At least I've got five static IP addresses and it only costs $100 per month. At least it's not capped; on a quiet night I've seen as much as 4.5 Mbps down. The price is outrageous - but there really isn't any other useful option.
Cable modem? The dirty secret of cable internet is that all the users in a "service area" are all on the same subnet - and all share the same gateway to a T1 class line. If you're the only one in the neighborhood using the internet it's very speedy. But in places like Silicon Valley where a large percentage of the population is connected - well, sharing that 1.5 between 40 or 50 people really sucks. No better than dialup in the evenings...
So let's talk infrastructure. The telephone lines in my neighborhood are underground; 26 gauge wires in bundles running between unsealed concrete boxes - and the connections are made with TelCo butt connectors. I see PacBell service people on the street almost weekly. They're having trouble providing reliable telephone service to all the houses and according to the service guys the wiring needs to be replaced - and it's not going to happen because of the costs. I wonder what it costs to have a service truck parked in our neighborhood.
The cable company came through a couple of years back with backhoes and cable trucks and ran fiber to every cable box location. They "filled in" their trenches and left a doorknob hanger to let us know that they'd be turning the fiber on very soon and they'd let us know when it was available. Still waiting; I suspect it's going to be a long, long time.
One thing both corporations are very good at is pushing through regular rate increases. The usual story is that they need more money to upgrade the infrastructure - but somehow the infrastructure doesn't ever really get upgraded. At least not in any way that provides more value to the customers...
Seems to me that the biggest source of "sabotage" comes from badly designed and hastily coded programs *cough*Windows*cough*. They are the source of more IT problems than even a herd of clueless users. Rather than berate someone for clicking on an email attachment and setting loose another virus - how about going after the fools that made it possible to launch a virus from an email?
Between dealing with "stand it up and it falls over again" software and anxious users and arrogant managers that want it working YESTERDAY it's no surprise that your average IT worker is disgruntled. How can they win when if things are working they're being lazy and sitting around doing nothing. Then when things come unstuck they can't possibly fulfill the expectations placed upon them.
Picture this scenario: You get a frantic call from an exec - "mail is down!" So you check the Exchange server. Oops; database is corrupted (again?) What to do? Restore from tape; that'll take 4 or 5 hours. Now, while that tape drive is grinding away you get to field dozens of increasingly frantic calls from management - it's your fault that the problem isn't fixed yet and if your company is typical you'll receive some pointed threats from management before that restore completes. Disgruntled yet? Tomorrow's another day...
Here's a tip - if you see an IT worker with a smile on his/her face, they've been on the job for less than 6 months.
And when that disgruntled IT worker leaves - they're not looking for revenge, they're looking to get away from the nightmare. The company can be as paranoid as they want but their ex-employees just don't care anymore.
If Novell loses the ability to distribute Linux because they've broken the terms of the GPL by including software with incompatible licensing - then so be it. There'd still be plenty of good Linux distributions available, and it wouldn't be hard at all to explain why their actions required the termination of their license to distribute.
It wouldn't be sensible to allow them to continue. SCO isn't getting anywhere because they can't seem to find any of their code in Linux. But with Novell slipping Microsoft supplied IP into Linux little by little - when the next patsy sues the infringing code will be right there - right where they put it. They don't even need to insert the infringing code themselves; just roll out some useful / fancy bits of code (with undeclared Microsoft supplied IP inside) and let the community cross-pollinate them into multiple distributions.
Microsoft is still holding onto their monopoly position - but there are some very smart people working there and they can see the writing on the wall. It's getting harder and harder for them to create new Windows versions and Linux distributions keep getting better and better. As their sales decline, they'll need to increase prices to maintain their margins - and more and more people will find the low / no cost alternative more to their liking. In the long term, Windows will fade away. Microsoft sees this and they're scared. They'll do ANYTHING they can to derail Linux, legal or not.
They've tried FUD along with SCO and their ill-conceived lawsuits; it didn't work. This won't be the last attack against GPL software and they're watching and learning all the time. The next skirmish (Novell?) will pick up where SCO left off and they'll keep attacking until they win (highly unlikely) or die.
What Microsoft can't overcome is that the Linux distributions are a joint product of the IT community. Not one company or one person but hundreds or thousands of programmers who have donated their time to the project. Not only are they outnumbered, but their enemy is also the target market for their products. It's a lose-lose situation - but they'll create much noise and distraction as they try to rewrite reality...
If I was running a blog and wanted to save on bandwidth, getting YouTube to host the embedded videos would work great. Grab a video clip, stick on some identification, upload it to YouTube then embed it in the blog. Presto; streaming video without the cost.
The identification added (they're not the only ones to do this by far) is usually done to discourage others from linking to the video and stealing bandwidth. In this case it appears that adding tags has become a habit.
I don't see how one could complain about using YouTube this way - they DO offer free video hosting. What's more questionable is taking someone else's copyrighted work and altering it by adding a trailer, or embedding a logo in the JPEG, or a watermark, or whatever. That's not even close to ethical or legal...
Replace all the "dimmers"? Sure, if the state is planning to pay to replace them with like kind and quality that works with CF lights.
When you've got about 70 X-10 "dimmers" in your house this would be an expensive proposition. And savings? My centrally-controlled lighting system saves power by making sure that lights don't get left on. I use flourescent lights where they're appropriate, but the controller for them is much more expensive and doesn't dim.
The big problem: (technical explanation follows, easily bored skip to next reply)
The lighting in most homes is wired so that power is fed to the ceiling fixture - and a length of 2-conductor cable runs to the switch. The switch "loop" is in series with the hot lead to the light; turn on the switch and the circuit is complete. The problem with installing "smart" switches is that there's no neutral at the switch box; no power to run the switch circuitry.
The X-10 guys designed their light modules to bleed a very small current through the controlled light when it's off. The resistor in series is a much higher resistance than the bulb, so most of the line voltage is dropped across the resistor. That provides the power source to run the circuitry when the light is off - when the light is on, there's about 3 volts dropped across the module which provides the power to run the circuitry when the light is on. The actual circuitry is much trickier than I describe - but the end result is that you can connect them up in that wall switch box with nothing but the hot switch loop in it and they'll work.
Their operation depends upon being able to run that small trickle current through the load. CF lights can't do this; their electronic ballast doesn't present a resistive load to the line. Dim a CF light? Yes, they can be dimmed. You won't be impressed with the way they dim, though. To be specific: current X10 light switch modules are not compatible with CF lights.
Where it'd get ugly to switch over would be the wiring. The switch modules wouldn't be able to get power in the usual way, so they'd need a connection to both hot and neutral wires. That means you'd have to run new wiring to each and every wall switch; I can't even imagine how much that'd cost.
I can only hope that this proposal gets shot down as unworkable - or that it's only applicable to new construction. Retrofitting existing structures would be a lot more expensive than just replacing the light bulbs.
Corporations exist to make a profit; making an ever increasing profit is required of them by their shareholders and some ill-conceived laws. Expecting Verizon or any other corporation to behave in a different way is nothing more than wishful thinking.
When corporations provide essential services, the possiblity for great evil exists. If government doesn't step in to protect the public interest, those corporations will take every opportunity to collect an ever increasing fee from their captive customers.
This is why things like the Sherman Act exist - to provide a counter-balance against unrestrained corporate greed. Unfortunately, our government seems to be unable or unwilling to exercise these tools to promote the public interest.
In the meantime, if you simply assume that every corporation is out to make every possible dollar in any way they can - you'll be right.
I suspect that those who complain of their IT staff having bad attitudes would benefit greatly from serving in the IT support role for 6 months - maybe a year. We're not bad people; we do this stuff because we want to help.
But the work environment isn't exactly nice. Someone has a problem; they fuss around with it and get increasingly frustrated before finally calling for help. Then the IT guy gets a face full of their frustration while he's trying to figure out what went wrong, how to fix it, and how to stop it from going wrong again.
The "help desk" is rated on how many trouble tickets they handle and how many / how fast they close them, so they're highly motivated to close as many as possible immediately. That at least partially explains the experience so many have had when they call the help desk, get told to reboot the computer and call back if that didn't fix the problem. Bingo; another ticket "handled" and closed.
Of course, that also creates more hostility for the IT tech to deal with when the user finally breaks through to the second level. And don't forget that every problem is priority #1 and must be solved RIGHT NOW. Heaven help you if you have to order a part or a particularly tricky problem takes several hours to unravel - now you'll have management howling at you for failing to meet their expectations. Those are the same expectations that make the pointy headed crowd decide that you should only spend 20 or 30 minutes per repair - and then you're assigned problems at the rate of 16 or 20 per day to solve. Yes, they do that - and this is why someone further up the page noted that it took days for the IT guy to finally show up. Too much work, gotta perform triage - problems that prevent people from working come first, problems that affect productivity come second, everything else waits until last.
Now, while you're getting abused from above and below, imagine visiting someone's PC and finding it loaded with spyware and other junk they downloaded from the web. Too much business critical data to reimage the machine, so you spend two or three hours rooting out the junk - while the user, their manager, and your manager are bugging you for status updates every three minutes. Get it done, give it back to the user with careful instructions about company policy regarding downloaded programs. Do you receive any thanks? Nope; you'll have to explain why you failed to meet management expectations on this repair.
Now two days later you get sent to see the same user because the machine you spent so much time on is malfunctioning again. Take a look and find that the user has downloaded and installed all the same games / themes / spyware they had on it before. You know how this is going to turn out - it's all your fault - what would YOU do?
Imagine this kind of stuff going on day after day, week after week, year after year. How would YOUR sunny disposition hold up?
To a surprisingly large group of people, the idea that you can create technical solutions to societal problems sounds reasonable and worth pursuing. DRM is just another example of this bad idea; consider internet filters (save the children!), spam filters, etc.
As attractive as the idea may be, it's doomed to failure no matter how eloquently you describe it. There's a class of problems that can be solved by technology, and there's another class of problems that can be solved by human intellect. They're not the same, and they only overlap in a very small area. Trying to use technology to solve problems that can only be described / solved by human intellect is an exercise in futility.
So it's not possible to create an internet filter that'll block "illegal" material and let everything else through.
It's not possible to create a spam filter that'll block all the spam and let all other email through.
And it's not possible to create DRM that'll block all "illegal" actions and allow all other uses.
Are those executives pushing DRM evil, or are they just ill-informed. I suspect that they really expect that DRM will do what they want it to do and just don't understand that what they expect is impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
With that background in place their lawsuit looks a bit different, doesn't it? They're suing YouTube for not doing more than the law requires in policing videos on their site. That's also more than Viacom does in policing videos on the sites they own, too.
So call it a copyright suit all you want, but it's really Viacom using the courts to beat up on a competitor. What they're claiming is noting more than what their "legal" department could scratch up on short notice.
I really hope YouTube defends themselves vigorously and makes an example of Viacom. And I can also hope that the courts lay some heavy sanctions on Viacom for misusing the legal system in this way.
And how nice of them to step out from behind some industry assosiation and act directly - that makes it easy to tell who the players are.
It's just another round in the ongoing battle between those who profit from controlling the production and distribution of audio / video / text and the modern world. The internet killed their lock on access to entertainment and the media companies are fighting for their lives. It's a lost cause; they can't win. But they'll make lots of noise as they fight against inevitability.
So Intel upping the rating to 5 million hours is meaningless. Somehow I suspect that the people at Intel know this...
Then - as promised by their leadership ("we'll firewall it at the PC!") they embedded a rootkit on music CDs. This criminal act, followed by their arrogant defense of this action, proved to me that they are nothing more than the lowest level of corporate scum.
So I made a choice - no more money to Sony. Hasn't hurt a bit; I've spent freely on electronics and entertainment and don't miss Sony a bit.
Those who haven't learned yet are doomed to suffer at Sony's hands - Sony hasn't learned their lesson yet. They don't have a public relations problem, they have a corporate ethics problem. I don't see anything that indicates any change in this situation at any time in the forseeable future.
This only goes just so far, though. Before long, all the people with the skills you need have heard about your business style and become hard to hire. That doesn't mean that there aren't an abundance of skilled employees that could fill your openings - it just means that they don't want to work for Microsoft.
So companies like Microsoft love the H1B program. They can employ immigrants far less expensively than American workers - under conditions that are indistinguishable from slavery.
But that's not what the linked article is about. We're talking about illegal immigrants here - what possible interest in this could Microsoft have - unless their business depends upon employing undocumented illegal aliens. What does Bill know that he's not talking about that would lead him to issue such a public statement?
Phones like the Motorola Star-Tac or the Motorola Razr weren't excellent performers - but they were stylish and unique. Because of that, they sold huge numbers of these phones at (initially) very high prices. Remember $1,000 Star-Tacs? I do...
I don't think anyone can deny that Apple has hit the mark for a stylish and trendy yet functional cell phone. It's got all the ingredients of a massive seller - and sufficient marketing (Apple and AT&T) behind it to insure success.
Watch for lines of customers with $600 in their hands at the doors of the AT&T stores on release day. Then, as time goes by the phone will be sold at a series of declining price points - pausing at each level to fill demand at that price.
How many Razrs have been sold at this point? The IPhone is a better product in every way.
There's plenty of unemployed people right here in the US that are fully qualified to fill these positions. If these corporations would simply pay market rates - and stop the discrimination and abuse - they'd be able to fill every empty seat with experienced employees.
On a level playing field, this is what they'd have to do. Treat the employees right or they'll go work for someone else. But these corporations don't want to play by the rules. Forget those nasty federal and state laws about discrimination and fair labor standards; they'll just pay off some politicians to create a special category of employees and call it H1B. Very handy; now they can import foreigners and use them essentially as slave labor. Yes, slave labor. If you can't quit or change jobs what would YOU call it?
Why am I not surprised that they want to expand this practice? The constant crying about "We need to be competitive" should be a warning sign.
I've got a better idea: these corporations should bring themselves into FULL compliance with all federal and state labor laws and pay their employees according to the prevailing market rate. And if they can't do this and remain competitive, their business plan isn't workable and they should either fix the problems or shut down.
Let's see now; Microsoft has a long history of legal problems because of the way they treat their employees. Now they need to increase the number of imported indentured servants to remain competitive. Nothing new here; same old story.
Why do we allow this to continue?
Now they've identified Linux as a competitor. And they're embarking on a campaign of FUD to soften their competitor up for crushing. This time it's different, though. Linux isn't a company or a person (not even Linus) - it's a collaborative effort of hundreds or thousands of developers all over the world. Individually they may be "weak" but as Linux they're very, very strong. Strong enough to stand up to Microsoft - and deal that monopolist some real damage.
SCO was a test case; use those fools in Utah to run a feint against a perceived foe. That's not turning out well; their patsy is about to have their hind parts handed to them in court. The resultant smoking crater should be informative to Ballmer & Co., but it's not likely they're sufficiently clueful to walk away from a bad end.
So they'll continue to rattle sabres - and when Ballmer & Co. whip themselves up to a sufficient level of courage to do battle with the Linux beast, they'll get their hind parts handed to them as well. It won't be a pretty battle and many, many outsiders will be called upon to assist the Microsofties in their campaign. Ultimately, it won't make any difference. They're going to set themselves against the vast army of developers and be consumed in the resulting deflagragration.
Watch carefully - Ballmer & Co. are experts in decimating their competition. They've never imagined that they'd come up against an implacable foe much, much larger than themselves. That day is coming very soon and the IT world will never be the same afterward.
An ethical company would learn from their mistake and avoid selling things at a loss in the future.
A less-than-ethical company would attempt to pass the cost of their mistake on to their customers. That's another mistake that'll affect their bottom line - as people see how they handle the situation and choose to patronize a different store.
Those who say that the customers are in some way responsible for the company's mistake - it was the company that set the price and the company willingly entered into the transaction at that price.
If you really want to pay them the difference then go ahead - just be aware that you are under absolutely no obligation to do so.
Choices? Well, there's the cable company (Comcast) and a few DSL resellers. Those resellers are all selling PacBell DSL service, so technically there's just one DSL provider as well.
Back when I moved into this house I tried to get DSL - Earthlink had a good offer. After weeks of missed connections and contradicting stories they told me I was too far from the DSLAM and cancelled my order. Covad was much more efficient in running me around the phone tree to the "too far out" conclusion. Finally I went directly to PacBell - and surprise, I was well within range. They shipped an install kit almost immediately and the installer followed a few days later.
So I've got what they call "Business Class" DSL service. A whopping 1.5 Mbps down and 128 Kbps up. WooHoo! At least I've got five static IP addresses and it only costs $100 per month. At least it's not capped; on a quiet night I've seen as much as 4.5 Mbps down. The price is outrageous - but there really isn't any other useful option.
Cable modem? The dirty secret of cable internet is that all the users in a "service area" are all on the same subnet - and all share the same gateway to a T1 class line. If you're the only one in the neighborhood using the internet it's very speedy. But in places like Silicon Valley where a large percentage of the population is connected - well, sharing that 1.5 between 40 or 50 people really sucks. No better than dialup in the evenings...
So let's talk infrastructure. The telephone lines in my neighborhood are underground; 26 gauge wires in bundles running between unsealed concrete boxes - and the connections are made with TelCo butt connectors. I see PacBell service people on the street almost weekly. They're having trouble providing reliable telephone service to all the houses and according to the service guys the wiring needs to be replaced - and it's not going to happen because of the costs. I wonder what it costs to have a service truck parked in our neighborhood.
The cable company came through a couple of years back with backhoes and cable trucks and ran fiber to every cable box location. They "filled in" their trenches and left a doorknob hanger to let us know that they'd be turning the fiber on very soon and they'd let us know when it was available. Still waiting; I suspect it's going to be a long, long time.
One thing both corporations are very good at is pushing through regular rate increases. The usual story is that they need more money to upgrade the infrastructure - but somehow the infrastructure doesn't ever really get upgraded. At least not in any way that provides more value to the customers...
Between dealing with "stand it up and it falls over again" software and anxious users and arrogant managers that want it working YESTERDAY it's no surprise that your average IT worker is disgruntled. How can they win when if things are working they're being lazy and sitting around doing nothing. Then when things come unstuck they can't possibly fulfill the expectations placed upon them.
Picture this scenario: You get a frantic call from an exec - "mail is down!" So you check the Exchange server. Oops; database is corrupted (again?) What to do? Restore from tape; that'll take 4 or 5 hours. Now, while that tape drive is grinding away you get to field dozens of increasingly frantic calls from management - it's your fault that the problem isn't fixed yet and if your company is typical you'll receive some pointed threats from management before that restore completes. Disgruntled yet? Tomorrow's another day...
Here's a tip - if you see an IT worker with a smile on his/her face, they've been on the job for less than 6 months.
And when that disgruntled IT worker leaves - they're not looking for revenge, they're looking to get away from the nightmare. The company can be as paranoid as they want but their ex-employees just don't care anymore.
It wouldn't be sensible to allow them to continue. SCO isn't getting anywhere because they can't seem to find any of their code in Linux. But with Novell slipping Microsoft supplied IP into Linux little by little - when the next patsy sues the infringing code will be right there - right where they put it. They don't even need to insert the infringing code themselves; just roll out some useful / fancy bits of code (with undeclared Microsoft supplied IP inside) and let the community cross-pollinate them into multiple distributions.
Microsoft is still holding onto their monopoly position - but there are some very smart people working there and they can see the writing on the wall. It's getting harder and harder for them to create new Windows versions and Linux distributions keep getting better and better. As their sales decline, they'll need to increase prices to maintain their margins - and more and more people will find the low / no cost alternative more to their liking. In the long term, Windows will fade away. Microsoft sees this and they're scared. They'll do ANYTHING they can to derail Linux, legal or not.
They've tried FUD along with SCO and their ill-conceived lawsuits; it didn't work. This won't be the last attack against GPL software and they're watching and learning all the time. The next skirmish (Novell?) will pick up where SCO left off and they'll keep attacking until they win (highly unlikely) or die.
What Microsoft can't overcome is that the Linux distributions are a joint product of the IT community. Not one company or one person but hundreds or thousands of programmers who have donated their time to the project. Not only are they outnumbered, but their enemy is also the target market for their products. It's a lose-lose situation - but they'll create much noise and distraction as they try to rewrite reality...
The identification added (they're not the only ones to do this by far) is usually done to discourage others from linking to the video and stealing bandwidth. In this case it appears that adding tags has become a habit.
I don't see how one could complain about using YouTube this way - they DO offer free video hosting. What's more questionable is taking someone else's copyrighted work and altering it by adding a trailer, or embedding a logo in the JPEG, or a watermark, or whatever. That's not even close to ethical or legal...
When you've got about 70 X-10 "dimmers" in your house this would be an expensive proposition. And savings? My centrally-controlled lighting system saves power by making sure that lights don't get left on. I use flourescent lights where they're appropriate, but the controller for them is much more expensive and doesn't dim.
The big problem: (technical explanation follows, easily bored skip to next reply)
The lighting in most homes is wired so that power is fed to the ceiling fixture - and a length of 2-conductor cable runs to the switch. The switch "loop" is in series with the hot lead to the light; turn on the switch and the circuit is complete. The problem with installing "smart" switches is that there's no neutral at the switch box; no power to run the switch circuitry.
The X-10 guys designed their light modules to bleed a very small current through the controlled light when it's off. The resistor in series is a much higher resistance than the bulb, so most of the line voltage is dropped across the resistor. That provides the power source to run the circuitry when the light is off - when the light is on, there's about 3 volts dropped across the module which provides the power to run the circuitry when the light is on. The actual circuitry is much trickier than I describe - but the end result is that you can connect them up in that wall switch box with nothing but the hot switch loop in it and they'll work.
Their operation depends upon being able to run that small trickle current through the load. CF lights can't do this; their electronic ballast doesn't present a resistive load to the line. Dim a CF light? Yes, they can be dimmed. You won't be impressed with the way they dim, though. To be specific: current X10 light switch modules are not compatible with CF lights.
Where it'd get ugly to switch over would be the wiring. The switch modules wouldn't be able to get power in the usual way, so they'd need a connection to both hot and neutral wires. That means you'd have to run new wiring to each and every wall switch; I can't even imagine how much that'd cost.
I can only hope that this proposal gets shot down as unworkable - or that it's only applicable to new construction. Retrofitting existing structures would be a lot more expensive than just replacing the light bulbs.
When corporations provide essential services, the possiblity for great evil exists. If government doesn't step in to protect the public interest, those corporations will take every opportunity to collect an ever increasing fee from their captive customers.
This is why things like the Sherman Act exist - to provide a counter-balance against unrestrained corporate greed. Unfortunately, our government seems to be unable or unwilling to exercise these tools to promote the public interest.
In the meantime, if you simply assume that every corporation is out to make every possible dollar in any way they can - you'll be right.
I suspect that those who complain of their IT staff having bad attitudes would benefit greatly from serving in the IT support role for 6 months - maybe a year. We're not bad people; we do this stuff because we want to help.
But the work environment isn't exactly nice. Someone has a problem; they fuss around with it and get increasingly frustrated before finally calling for help. Then the IT guy gets a face full of their frustration while he's trying to figure out what went wrong, how to fix it, and how to stop it from going wrong again.
The "help desk" is rated on how many trouble tickets they handle and how many / how fast they close them, so they're highly motivated to close as many as possible immediately. That at least partially explains the experience so many have had when they call the help desk, get told to reboot the computer and call back if that didn't fix the problem. Bingo; another ticket "handled" and closed.
Of course, that also creates more hostility for the IT tech to deal with when the user finally breaks through to the second level. And don't forget that every problem is priority #1 and must be solved RIGHT NOW. Heaven help you if you have to order a part or a particularly tricky problem takes several hours to unravel - now you'll have management howling at you for failing to meet their expectations. Those are the same expectations that make the pointy headed crowd decide that you should only spend 20 or 30 minutes per repair - and then you're assigned problems at the rate of 16 or 20 per day to solve. Yes, they do that - and this is why someone further up the page noted that it took days for the IT guy to finally show up. Too much work, gotta perform triage - problems that prevent people from working come first, problems that affect productivity come second, everything else waits until last.
Now, while you're getting abused from above and below, imagine visiting someone's PC and finding it loaded with spyware and other junk they downloaded from the web. Too much business critical data to reimage the machine, so you spend two or three hours rooting out the junk - while the user, their manager, and your manager are bugging you for status updates every three minutes. Get it done, give it back to the user with careful instructions about company policy regarding downloaded programs. Do you receive any thanks? Nope; you'll have to explain why you failed to meet management expectations on this repair.
Now two days later you get sent to see the same user because the machine you spent so much time on is malfunctioning again. Take a look and find that the user has downloaded and installed all the same games / themes / spyware they had on it before. You know how this is going to turn out - it's all your fault - what would YOU do?
Imagine this kind of stuff going on day after day, week after week, year after year. How would YOUR sunny disposition hold up?
To a surprisingly large group of people, the idea that you can create technical solutions to societal problems sounds reasonable and worth pursuing. DRM is just another example of this bad idea; consider internet filters (save the children!), spam filters, etc. As attractive as the idea may be, it's doomed to failure no matter how eloquently you describe it. There's a class of problems that can be solved by technology, and there's another class of problems that can be solved by human intellect. They're not the same, and they only overlap in a very small area. Trying to use technology to solve problems that can only be described / solved by human intellect is an exercise in futility. So it's not possible to create an internet filter that'll block "illegal" material and let everything else through. It's not possible to create a spam filter that'll block all the spam and let all other email through. And it's not possible to create DRM that'll block all "illegal" actions and allow all other uses. Are those executives pushing DRM evil, or are they just ill-informed. I suspect that they really expect that DRM will do what they want it to do and just don't understand that what they expect is impossible.