I would much rather type my credit card number in every stinking time I buy something than trust somebody else's code to keep my info safe (don't know that I'd trust my own, for that matter).
It's a whole lot more hassle to deal with an unauthorized purchase than typing in 16 numbers.
Right - except the big companies don't eat the cost. They just pass it off to their customers by charging higher prices for their goods. Basically, every consumer, regardless of whether they have a credit card or not, pays for the stuff ripped off by using a stolen card number.
I wish a date change could eliminate this kind of idiocy. However, it seems that the most sensational garners the most attention. As long as the irrational commands attention, we have little hope of a reprieve from this kind of lunacy.
Wouldn't sign on to that one. I provide systems and development support in this environment. With the heavy involvement in the human genome project and the requisite amounts of data, these guys can get quite fussy when they don't have bandwidth or can't work with the data from home.
I don't know; I kinda think that Microsoft needs somebody like Posner to mediate for them.
Given the basic ineptitude in their relationship with the DOJ before the trial and the court during the trial, they were their own worst enemy. If there are any issues of import here at all (the specter of government oversight being one), I would much rather someone like Posner argue. He has a better shot at doing so intelligently than the way Microsoft has been pressing it.
Hey, having trouble making ends meet? Follow Bob(TM)'s step by step guide:
Path to easy street
(1) Buy a piece of hardware from a big name company;
(2) Test thoroughly to find all bugs (what are the odds that a given piece of hardware has a bug? Better to consider the odds of NOT having a bug).
(3) Get a lawyer to bring a class action suit. Shouldn't have a problem finding these guys. Here are some possible sources:
* Billboards or TV ads * Get a list of people who've bought scanners from Radio Shack. Should be pretty thick with 'em. * Stop by your county court house - look for the guys with briefcases and pencil-line mustaches.
(4) Use the "what if I used my computer to control a nuclear medicine workstation" rationale for why the owe me big bucks. That gets 'em every time. You only need to show POTENTIAL harm, after all;
(5) (Optional) Get the list of "guests" from the Jerry Springer show to help you demonstrate harm caused by the product;
(6) Settle for bucks. Lawyers will get most. But, you know the real secret: VOLUME, VOLUME, VOLUME.
OK, Toshiba dropped the ball - they should have fixed it when they found out there was a problem.
But $2 Billion?!? What sort of accounting could you ever possibly do that would result in a loss potential for consumers of that amount. Even if you assume punitives, I couldn't see it.
You don't even hear those kinds of numbers where people die (unless you count tobacco, where tens of thousands were hurt and killed).
I respect Toshiba for settling. But, I wish they would slug it out in court.
To a large extent, trademarks are geographical entities; I wasn't arguing that they weren't.
I believe there is a trademark is a valuable commodity - particularly in cyberspace. So, the DNS namespace should be structured to protect that commodity.
It is not responsible or sufficient to say "we're not playing by your rules." Regional authorities regulate all sorts of activities of their citizenry on the Internet. The DNS namespace should be structured to respect those authorities and the protect the commodity.
Yep, that's how much it costs if you want to pay your salaries, maintain your infrastructure, and return X cents per share to your stockholders.
Since you can't do much preparation for the future without dollars, you can't get dollars without investors, and investors require a return - kinda stands to reason - now, don't it?
Imagine what it would do to the share price if Coke simply said, "Hey, we decided not to make a profit on this here stuff anymore." Hope your current (or future) 401K isn't investing in Coca-Cola.
What I was pointing out is that this is a combination of some cost recovery along with the opportunistic profitering.
Fact is that it does cost more money to supply a cold drink when it is hot than when it is cold (Unless it's REALLY cold, when the costs begin to go up again).
Arguably, however, one can see that the price may, indeed, go up when the temperature increases. It takes more electricity to cool drinks when it's hot. Also, since the box only holds so much, some guy has to drive his truck out to refill it when it's empty. When it's hot, he has to come out more often - more gas, labor, etc.
However, there is a lot of potential for abuse. If they overcharged more than real costs, it is the same type of money-grubbing attitude that drives opportunists to jack up the price of building materials after a hurricane comes through.
As far as hacking the sensor, it's all a matter of sensor placement to defeat the hack. It would take an awful lot of ice (or liquid nitrogen) to cool the sensor if it is inside the dispenser case (but outside the refrigerated container;)). You'd spend more $$$ cooling the box down than the drink would cost.
Actually, they have good reason to worry. Their particular trademark comes to mind as an example of one that will be easily stepped on.
Prior to the introduction of the book series, I, personally, can't recall an instance of the common usage of for Dummies. But, since their introduction, the term is used very widely to describe instruction from first principles with reduced jargon.
They have no hope of retaining it unless they defend it. Furthermore, unless they defend it vigorously, they are under great risk of being trampled by ever growing common usage.
OK but how about General Electric, General Motors and Wall Street Journal? These have very common words but imply an particular entity (in some cases, world-wide).
Should there be a free-for-all for www.generalelectric.com?
Granted, there may be a General Electric Company of Hendersonville, Indiana. But, when I type www.generalelectric.com in New York, Altanta, or Seattle, it is more likely that I intend to get GE than the small shop in Indiana.
These sorts of disputes are precisely what trademark law addresses in the "real world." Since these disputes also occur on the Net, don't the same arbitration procedures seem to apply?
A little thought experiment: Consider Kodak, a well established business. If I were Joe Consumer and saw a sign on a store that said "Kodak products sold here," it would almost universally (certainly within the US and, I would venture, most of the world) cause me to expect that I can pick up Kodak brand photographic products inside that store. A trademark protects that association as a key asset - and, it really is an asset.
Shouldn't Kodak be allowed to translate that identifying mark to the Internet? When you go to your web browser and type in "www.kodak.com", don't you expect to find information on the very same company in illustration above?
Further, doesn't Kodak have some rights to prevent others from capitalizing on a name reputation for purposes other than to the benefit of the company that earned it?
Granted, there are issues (the 'Q' illustration you used is a good one). However, to believe the slate is clean with repect to domain names is myopic; there needs to be some emforcability of trademarks in cyberspace.
What's more likely is that your devices will detect when you're not actively using them and will take the opportunity to blast up an ad or two.
Ad shown in the viewfinder, just after you press the button:
****
What a great picture! This would look wonderful on Kodak(R) brand paper.
Kodak(R) - for the good look(TM).
****
Ah, but the best part is the camera only costs $10 bucks because it's underwritten by these ads and all the demographics that get blasted back when you take a shot.
Not to mention the Jennycam potential: "By using this camera, the user signifies acceptance of the following terms: 1) Kodak can, at their option, randomly select and display shots from your session on their website as examples of the quality of their subsidized camera..."
It's not just the API, it's the entire OS conceptual model.
From the outset, the UNIX conceptual model is something you can "wrap your brain around." Once you understand file operations (and file handles, etc), you understand 80% of what you need to know to do some decent development. The same concepts you use to twiddle one device, you use to twiddle others.
Plus, everything is "out there" and has been for a couple of decades. There is no real archane knowledge conveyed by a mountain dwelling hermit (Ken Thompson?) that is the secret to development. Neither you need to trade a kidney to an organization like M$ to get a piece of the action or the inside track.
Programming for Windows hurts and, sometimes, I wind up with the bohemoth that I can't even stand to look at much less continue to work on.
Clearly, at Microsoft, the KISS rule went right out the MS-Window(TM).
Both the book model and the web model have R&D costs for the content. So, the differentiators are:
Book market: high production and delivery costs. To remain competitive (or just to be able to get people to buy at all) means markup on books must be small. I suppose you could make it up on the subscription updates, etc.
Web market: lower production and delivery costs. In this case, they give it away, so no money from markup. Advertising dollars only.
TV shows advertising only dollars work well. I'll bet they have a better chance staying alive this way than with the books/CDs.
Geeze, the guy is old but that doesn't mean he's an imbecile. He might actually catch onto this Linux thing with no trouble and start posting a bit of his earned wisdom on Slashdot!
Anyway, you might consider doing a very simple TCL/TK app to present an uncomplicated user interface under a normal X environment. That way, as Gramps steps out a little, he can start to experience a little more of what the environment has to offer.
I did a similar app to simplify life for Windows and Mac types who need to use centralized apps on a UNIX system. I was a newbie to TCL/TK but was able to slap it together quickly and it did the trick.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you win.
I would much rather type my credit card number in every stinking time I buy something than trust somebody else's code to keep my info safe (don't know that I'd trust my own, for that matter).
It's a whole lot more hassle to deal with an unauthorized purchase than typing in 16 numbers.
Right - except the big companies don't eat the cost. They just pass it off to their customers by charging higher prices for their goods. Basically, every consumer, regardless of whether they have a credit card or not, pays for the stuff ripped off by using a stolen card number.
Now at last this idiocy can end.
I wish a date change could eliminate this kind of idiocy. However, it seems that the most sensational garners the most attention. As long as the irrational commands attention, we have little hope of a reprieve from this kind of lunacy.
Biotech doesn't require good bandwidth.
Wouldn't sign on to that one. I provide systems and development support in this environment. With the heavy involvement in the human genome project and the requisite amounts of data, these guys can get quite fussy when they don't have bandwidth or can't work with the data from home.
I don't know; I kinda think that Microsoft needs somebody like Posner to mediate for them.
Given the basic ineptitude in their relationship with the DOJ before the trial and the court during the trial, they were their own worst enemy. If there are any issues of import here at all (the specter of government oversight being one), I would much rather someone like Posner argue. He has a better shot at doing so intelligently than the way Microsoft has been pressing it.
Hey, having trouble making ends meet? Follow Bob(TM)'s step by step guide:
Path to easy street
(1) Buy a piece of hardware from a big name company;
(2) Test thoroughly to find all bugs (what are the odds that a given piece of hardware has a bug? Better to consider the odds of NOT having a bug).
(3) Get a lawyer to bring a class action suit. Shouldn't have a problem finding these guys. Here are some possible sources:
* Billboards or TV ads
* Get a list of people who've bought scanners from Radio Shack. Should be pretty thick with 'em.
* Stop by your county court house - look for the guys with briefcases and pencil-line mustaches.
(4) Use the "what if I used my computer to control a nuclear medicine workstation" rationale for why the owe me big bucks. That gets 'em every time. You only need to show POTENTIAL harm, after all;
(5) (Optional) Get the list of "guests" from the Jerry Springer show to help you demonstrate harm caused by the product;
(6) Settle for bucks. Lawyers will get most. But, you know the real secret: VOLUME, VOLUME, VOLUME.
(7) Lather, rinse, repeat (go to step 1).
OK, Toshiba dropped the ball - they should have fixed it when they found out there was a problem.
But $2 Billion?!? What sort of accounting could you ever possibly do that would result in a loss potential for consumers of that amount. Even if you assume punitives, I couldn't see it.
You don't even hear those kinds of numbers where people die (unless you count tobacco, where tens of thousands were hurt and killed).
I respect Toshiba for settling. But, I wish they would slug it out in court.
Advertising, for one. (What in the world is Big 8 cola?)
To a large extent, trademarks are geographical entities; I wasn't arguing that they weren't.
I believe there is a trademark is a valuable commodity - particularly in cyberspace. So, the DNS namespace should be structured to protect that commodity.
It is not responsible or sufficient to say "we're not playing by your rules." Regional authorities regulate all sorts of activities of their citizenry on the Internet. The DNS namespace should be structured to respect those authorities and the protect the commodity.
Yep, that's how much it costs if you want to pay your salaries, maintain your infrastructure, and return X cents per share to your stockholders.
Since you can't do much preparation for the future without dollars, you can't get dollars without investors, and investors require a return - kinda stands to reason - now, don't it?
Imagine what it would do to the share price if Coke simply said, "Hey, we decided not to make a profit on this here stuff anymore." Hope your current (or future) 401K isn't investing in Coca-Cola.
Nope, wasn't saying that at all.
What I was pointing out is that this is a combination of some cost recovery along with the opportunistic profitering.
Fact is that it does cost more money to supply a cold drink when it is hot than when it is cold (Unless it's REALLY cold, when the costs begin to go up again).
Hope that's enough "simple logic" for ya.
Arguably, however, one can see that the price may, indeed, go up when the temperature increases. It takes more electricity to cool drinks when it's hot. Also, since the box only holds so much, some guy has to drive his truck out to refill it when it's empty. When it's hot, he has to come out more often - more gas, labor, etc.
;)). You'd spend more $$$ cooling the box down than the drink would cost.
However, there is a lot of potential for abuse. If they overcharged more than real costs, it is the same type of money-grubbing attitude that drives opportunists to jack up the price of building materials after a hurricane comes through.
As far as hacking the sensor, it's all a matter of sensor placement to defeat the hack. It would take an awful lot of ice (or liquid nitrogen) to cool the sensor if it is inside the dispenser case (but outside the refrigerated container
Isn't that lovely, humm?
Actually, they have good reason to worry. Their particular trademark comes to mind as an example of one that will be easily stepped on.
Prior to the introduction of the book series, I, personally, can't recall an instance of the common usage of for Dummies. But, since their introduction, the term is used very widely to describe instruction from first principles with reduced jargon.
They have no hope of retaining it unless they defend it. Furthermore, unless they defend it vigorously, they are under great risk of being trampled by ever growing common usage.
Humm - funny, the moon doesn't look like a bridge from here ...
This gives a whole new meaning to "source debugging."
OK but how about General Electric, General Motors and Wall Street Journal? These have very common words but imply an particular entity (in some cases, world-wide).
Should there be a free-for-all for www.generalelectric.com?
Granted, there may be a General Electric Company of Hendersonville, Indiana. But, when I type www.generalelectric.com in New York, Altanta, or Seattle, it is more likely that I intend to get GE than the small shop in Indiana.
These sorts of disputes are precisely what trademark law addresses in the "real world." Since these disputes also occur on the Net, don't the same arbitration procedures seem to apply?
I don't buy what your selling.
A little thought experiment: Consider Kodak, a well established business. If I were Joe Consumer and saw a sign on a store that said "Kodak products sold here," it would almost universally (certainly within the US and, I would venture, most of the world) cause me to expect that I can pick up Kodak brand photographic products inside that store. A trademark protects that association as a key asset - and, it really is an asset.
Shouldn't Kodak be allowed to translate that identifying mark to the Internet? When you go to your web browser and type in "www.kodak.com", don't you expect to find information on the very same company in illustration above?
Further, doesn't Kodak have some rights to prevent others from capitalizing on a name reputation for purposes other than to the benefit of the company that earned it?
Granted, there are issues (the 'Q' illustration you used is a good one). However, to believe the slate is clean with repect to domain names is myopic; there needs to be some emforcability of trademarks in cyberspace.
What's more likely is that your devices will detect when you're not actively using them and will take the opportunity to blast up an ad or two.
..."
Ad shown in the viewfinder, just after you press the button:
****
What a great picture! This would look wonderful on Kodak(R) brand paper.
Kodak(R) - for the good look(TM).
****
Ah, but the best part is the camera only costs $10 bucks because it's underwritten by these ads and all the demographics that get blasted back when you take a shot.
Not to mention the Jennycam potential: "By using this camera, the user signifies acceptance of the following terms: 1) Kodak can, at their option, randomly select and display shots from your session on their website as examples of the quality of their subsidized camera
It's not just the API, it's the entire OS conceptual model.
From the outset, the UNIX conceptual model is something you can "wrap your brain around." Once you understand file operations (and file handles, etc), you understand 80% of what you need to know to do some decent development. The same concepts you use to twiddle one device, you use to twiddle others.
Plus, everything is "out there" and has been for a couple of decades. There is no real archane knowledge conveyed by a mountain dwelling hermit (Ken Thompson?) that is the secret to development. Neither you need to trade a kidney to an organization like M$ to get a piece of the action or the inside track.
Programming for Windows hurts and, sometimes, I wind up with the bohemoth that I can't even stand to look at much less continue to work on.
Clearly, at Microsoft, the KISS rule went right out the MS-Window(TM).
Both the book model and the web model have R&D costs for the content. So, the differentiators are:
Book market: high production and delivery costs. To remain competitive (or just to be able to get people to buy at all) means markup on books must be small. I suppose you could make it up on the subscription updates, etc.
Web market: lower production and delivery costs. In this case, they give it away, so no money from markup. Advertising dollars only.
TV shows advertising only dollars work well. I'll bet they have a better chance staying alive this way than with the books/CDs.
Geeze, the guy is old but that doesn't mean he's an imbecile. He might actually catch onto this Linux thing with no trouble and start posting a bit of his earned wisdom on Slashdot!
Anyway, you might consider doing a very simple TCL/TK app to present an uncomplicated user interface under a normal X environment. That way, as Gramps steps out a little, he can start to experience a little more of what the environment has to offer.
I did a similar app to simplify life for Windows and Mac types who need to use centralized apps on a UNIX system. I was a newbie to TCL/TK but was able to slap it together quickly and it did the trick.
Good luck!