To add to your very correct comments, importing CD's is NOT cheap. Expect to double the cost of your goods if you can get them. So as cheap as mail-order looks on the surface you'll quickly learn the cost of importing.
Why should you have to? Because it's your responsibility to know what is moving in and out of your network, even you home internet connection. Take responsibility and quit being a victim!
Geez, I didn't get 'any' patches on said date, my files did not get updated (until today when I did update)
So yes, if you want to 'control' what happens to your computer, take steps to do so. If you don't want to or think you 'shouldn't have to' then that is your choice (hope you never get sued...). Enjoy all the stealth product installs/updates you get.
I think you've been under a rock for the last decade. People don't bother learning about these kind of rights since they don't talk about them on shows like CSI or American Idol. I really think these 'shows' should take the initiative to inform people.
Regardless, your penile argument that '...most people infringing are truly infringing' is quite amusing. You tube is not Kazaa...
Perhaps you have some valid facts to back that up. Personally I wish there was more copyright infringing posts on You Tube, but thats another topic, real content.
Agreed.
If you get sucked into such a auction, then you "deserve" to lose money. Afterwards, with any luck you'll learn not to repeat this again. But who's kidding who.
The proper method of testing is 'two' tests (samples). One at the time of detainment, and another after 20-30 minutes. Actual blood tests can and need only be tested 'once' (ie: needle in arm just once) but they can test this 'over' time instead of just 'at time of sample' as a breath test does. They are very capable of using this information to determine the 'actual' inebriation at time of the event.
Either way they are fairly damning to one's non-criminal status.
Now lets get back to how accurate is the breath tester!
Major ISP's in the US have told me in meetings that P2P makes up 70-80% of their total traffic. Do you really believe that the majority of this is legal content? Do you really beleive p2p in illegal bittorrents are using 70-80% of the internet?
Your nuttier than a pistachio.
For instance, citizens can't normally forcibly detain someone until police arrive. However,... Um yes they can. They can take it as a citizens arrest and the same rules apply to them as does any police officer.
As for the 'forcibly' verb this is nonsense. Nobody including LE can use FORCE unless they are assualted. Then you have right to use 'reasonable force'. So yes, as a citizen I can detain, even handcuff a suspect until police arrive 'if' I feel that leaving the individual uncuffed would be a danger to himself or the public.
If you have any doubts, go see a bounty hunter...
You all assume that Windows OS runs on the same hardware each version, do you even know how many manufactures out there are making computer components? No, we do NOT assume that, but regardless if I can run Windows 98 better on a P2 than Vista on a Dual Core, why shouldn't I run Win98 on my P2? I bet is uses less power, quieter, less fans to die, cheaper (you know TCO) and if it dies would you care?
But when my 6Ghz machine runs like it's doing all the folding@home computations alone this is not a step forward.
Does the blame always have to be pointed to MS? No, actually Apple is even stupider than the folks in Redmond since they follow a zealot.
You know a lot of issues can be pointed at hardware manufacture device drivers, Of course. Let's look at MS's track record. They have kept their 'notes' or 'source' code away from producers of drivers unless they were willing to pay extortionist fee's to acquire 'limited' access. Today they have corrected a lot of the past mistakes but their own desire to control the source left many manufactures high and dry. Think about all the solutions out there that other companies have fixed in MS's own code because they needed to get the drivers working? How many coders have hacked the kernel to get the results since they couldn't get a clue from the Redmond boys?
Personally if it wasn't for all the anti-trust activity against MS, I doubt today would be any different than 10 years ago.
I think MS is greatly responsible for the (lack of) quality drivers in existance. If they truly wished to acheive such a lofty goal they would change there ways....oh wait, they did!
OSX typically runs on hardware that it approves. Its been like that and will be like that. MS wishes it could do the same, but they are in a completely different boat here. What?!? Just try and install Vista on a non-approved system. HCL has a very important purpose with Windows, I guess some folks just seem to forget or automatically assume that a new OS means a NEW system. It's certainly the easiest way to upgrade windows, just buy a new computer.
So you'll fight that XP runs on Mac hardware now.. Cool! Now lets hope that MS OS doesn't get a bad rap for being on Mac hardware because of poorly written device drivers, there are people out there writing device drivers right now for XP to run on Mac hardware.
Again see my prior comment on the role the OS plays in driver development.
You know this just goes against the entire model of selling content and boxes for content.
Most companies sell the boxes at a loss or near loss (Apple is an exception here) to sell the content at premium. Most companies realize that content outsells hardware.
At $0.99 or $1.24 per song I really know for a fact that Apple is making 'profit' at this rate. When you see the average royalty at micro-pennies for such a rate, the RIAA is getting their 40%, who gets the rest? Must be Apple's shareholders.
I'm not saying my numbers are accurate, but they are pretty realistic.
Besides I've never known Apple to get involved with something if they weren't making money at it.
You may just want to review their earnings report for the last Q.
BS. Proof of delivery is all eBay cares about, prove that and they forget the whole issue.
So if you really had proof of delivery, you wouldn't be out 40k. Besides if you really are out 40k why aren't you at the FBI office in your state right now? They can and will get the details from eBay and investigate.
It means that you can't assume that they execute in any particularly thread context.
[snip]
So this guys definition of an idiot was someone who doesn't play with command prompts for a few seconds on Windows and deduce that the undocumented CDS structure must be per VM instanced and hence that file system redirectors would be local to one Dos box. I find that definition funny, because it would mean that all but a tiny handful of the people he meets would be 'idiots'. I'm sorry, why does this surprise you?
Turn that around: How do YOU sleep at night knowing that 'making available' a song that you don't own could wipe out your own savings? It's such a little thing, and SO easy to avoid... And yet, you do it anyhow.
Easy to avoid? People have been pointing out that we are rapidly approaching the day when, if you walk down a sidewalk whistling a tune, you'll be arrested and charged with unlicensed performance of a copyrighted work of music.
Fact is that the only practical way to avoid this now is to never say or do anything at all in public (which includes on the Internet). I've tested this a few times by asking a simple question: Suppose I have a tune in my head, and I'd like to discover whether it's something I "composed" myself or is a tune whose copyright is owned by someone. How do I do this?
[snip]
But it's all very unreliable, and depends on the good will (or reasonable lawyers) of corporations, in addition to help from other musicians who stumble across your stuff. In general, there's no way to know that a random public utterance or idly whistling a tune won't be a copyright violation. The only really safe strategy is to be utterly silent in public. On the Internet, this includes learning enough about your computer's innards to guarantee that it isn't exposing any file to outsiders.
The really big point I still constantly see people missing about this, is once you've PERFORMED the work, only THAT WORK is affected by copyright. Any derivative work, unless plagurized (and I think the SAMPLING scene has picked this dead corpse clean) which is a dead horse is not 'included' in the copyright. Matter of a fact I could produce my own version of your material, and publish it to my hearts content.
Even the same band performing the same song is a 'different art'.
As for the above comment, I agree with most of what your saying about the problems with copyright, and in today's corporate reality it's only going to get worse, but this last statement about being silent in public again is laudable at best. Whistle to your hearts content every possible song you like.
As for us being 'responsible to guarantee' is insane logic. I simply quote all the license agreements I've agreed to and state clearly 'I accepted the software with no claims and I used the software with no claims, and hence am not responsible for any possible violations to any claims without first asserting that those prior claims had no 'undo influence' on their claims. Given that the re are no protections to computer users to the 'abilities and performance' of said software, and without source code to review, I cannot see how anyone could determine that you purposefully committed a crime. Remember folks crime is crime. It's called that because it's criminal. If it's not a crime, then who cares?
Now if you don't get a lawyer to present your case it's going to be very hard for any judge to take you seriously.
So why isn't there security implemented as standard? Come on, there are lots of perfectly good standards: SSL, TSL, SSH, etc.
Damien There are actually no good implementations ATM. Many are looking into just such an appliance, but implementation as a standard may take so many years, we may just evolve around it.
You've bought into the Pusher Bogyman theory. Dealers come in many forms, PUSHERS is a completely made up term. Dealers don't pull strings to get people hooked, ask any pothead. They don't lurk around schools, or offer free drugs to 4th graders. 99% are just people trying to get by and using drug sales as their job. You never see a acidhead with a gun, unless he's planning to blow his own brains out. Same for Ecstasy and Pot Dealers. Crack dealers see it as their way out of poverty, they will do anything to get out even kill. Generally Violent Crime does not spill out into the regular people unless there are crossfires.
People have been robbing and burgling long before drugs and they will be at it long after this phony war is over. Saying that drug addicts are behind it is foolish. The dangerous criminal element are generally not drug addicts, and they are by far more dangerous to other drug dealers then to regular folk. I agree with the first part wholeheartedly. Pushers are just people too, and many are not even addicts or users. However the latter part about crime not being related to drugs is just blatantly incorrect. I have seen many reports on how drug-use causes crime on many scales. Prostitution, break and enters, theft, even robbery. These crimes are not all committed by users, but there is a good percentage of users who simply cannot afford their habits and simply will do anything to feed that habit. Another big crime is family theft. Stealing money and property to pawn or sell from parents, grandparents, children, etc. it is very common but not as commonly reported to law enforcement.
Of course I'm not trying to counter by saying that drug use == committing crime, just that a very tangible portion of crimes are committed by users.
"If" the #$%^@&* installer would 'actually' install everything. How many times have you tried to do something with MS Office only to be told "that has not been installed now, would you like to install it now?" No, I already installed you blasted crapware, why do I have to install now?
Oh, and maybe you told it to copy all the files to the hard disk so that when this happens you can quickly install said applet? No, you still need to go find you disk.
Blech! Terrible design, and OO 2.0 is superior in every dimension.
Dude, The morris worm worked by exploiting SMTP, whats your point. The "smart" ones 'fixed' the problem'. It took the rest of the planet 10 years. Typical
but a person who owns an open WAP gets their PCs confiscated by the cops. This must be a figure of speak...is there really a Police Department out there...anywhere...that sniffs out open WAP's and arrests the owner?
This I wanna see on 'Cops'!
I'm not buying any of this. Sure some SMTP servers were open, but not the smart ones. Granted the smart ones were pretty rare. As for dynamic content, this was taken into account, but not 'on-the-fly' dynamic content or 'user-generated' dynamic content were not considered. A Browser would allow one to browse, not alter or change.
But it was simple enough to take the content and alter it, and repost it, even linking to the original one. However IP and ownership of the 'content' got in the way. We quickly realized we didn't want 'free' content, or content that anyone could change, so http morphed into a 'way to conduct business' rather than a document protocol.
Back in 1991 we were learning about the potential for worms (Remember the Morris Worm!) so this 'era' was not so utopian as you claim. It was then we learned about the issues with DNS that today still hasn't been solved. Do you remember how many sites used to keep up posted with web defacements? It became a big thing in a very short order of time, by 1994 it was starting to get out of hand.
If you want to get religious about "what the web was meant for" then you have to reject not just dynamic content, but any web application that goes beyond Sir Tim's original concept of simple shared documents. But of course, people went beyond that from day one. Give geeks a new technology, and they'll hack around with it until they make it do all kinds of stuff that was never imagined by the original designers.
Maybe folks should not have kludged interactive application onto http. But I think it was inevitable. There was a huge demand for distributed applications, and the web was the only platform available. As you say, the horse has left the barn. Indeed, he's now surrounded by PETA types armed with tommy guns. We're not going to get him back. No the problem was people didn't like articles being 'reformatted' for http, they found this annoying. Many though MS word format would be the document reader of choice so even word became a mini browser. On top of this many companies tried to pigeon-hole what the web or internet was going to be by dominating the traffic, Again this went contrary to researchers, but marketers were not going to be dissuaded from such common sense.
Over time many idea's have died only to be reborn in java or ajax. Flash has become more than a simple animation tool to a completely interactive interface (with many issues of it's own).
The real religious aspect of all this is the fact that many developers were not interested in this new direction of http, yet many ex-dotcommer's were more than eager to design a scheme that meant they offered more and better from their web pages. Today's world is testimonial to all that ignorance. Web Application Attacking is rampant! Way to go!
We really need to create a true peer to peer client that can do all these wonderful things within a sandbox, so if something gets out of hand (buffer overflow, or directory traversal attempts, etc.) then it doesn't get out of the box.
Well, they had already done it once (replacing the DOS core in 95/98/ME with NT) No they didn't. DOS core is still found in XP (with 95/98/ME it was still a subsystem, I don't know where you got that NT drove this, why would anyone have bought NT if you could get it with 98? ) It was not used in NT/2000/2003. You can also reenable it in Compatibility mode with any current MS OS.
Funny, but you do have a valid point. Locks keep honest people honest.
It isn't difficult to slice through or drill most locks or the doors holding them, let alone picking the lock, but if there is an armed human on the other side that changes the game a bit.:)
Excuse me but what is informative about stating the obvious.
The 'POINT' made by this release (which btw those of us in security now have know for several months) is that the bumping technique used to get these locks 'leave no signs or trace of' circumvention.
So the real problem is (with nearly every lock on the market, not just these medeco high security locks) is that bumping them is a real problem.
Maybe it's just my current employer...but yes, we have old computer systems. We call it legacy hardware, and we keep a few around just in case. If the old stuff can't be easily converted to the new stuff, we have something to fall back on (i.e., if V25 of ooxml doesn't support V1, there'd still be a Win XP box floating around.) I agree. This is a very wise employer, or person, or culture, or whatever that will keep 'legacy system's around for the purpose of running that old software. Folks also tend to forget that if it worked in the past 100%, why would the newer version be better (+101%?)? Most software doesn't have an expiry date, but I'd double check any MS stuff you may have lying around for that 'foul expired odor'. Otherwise you did pay for it, use it. Sometimes (well most of the time) upgrades are valuable, but new versions typically change the old way or add something you may or may not like. Keeping that old version around allows you to do it the way you like.
Unfortunately most power users and advanced users prefer to test the new version waters and this does spark interest and curiosity perhaps even a retail distribution, for instance when Vista came out and everyone was saying how 'problematic' it was did this stop everyone from buying it? No, it was a bit slower than normal but sales are progressing. Not much has changed. For most software out there, Vista simply will not work with it. Sure, there is a lot of software that does work with Vista, but, its not an easy migration for the average software. I mean the most stupid programs need to be 'admin' or 'system' in order to do things and in Vista that's just not happening anymore. More developers need to work on updating their products to work with it, but then there is linux, MacOS, and other options for software. Governments particularily should be working directly to acheive OSI standards rather than some other IP scheme that will in turn hurt future generations of taxpayers.
I think it's terrible the way some companies prefer to simply 'expire' their software like it's no good anymore when if fact if it was good enough once it should remain good enough. I certainly understand it though when a company says they will not upgrade the software or offer bug fixes after it expires. To me that is what make an OS either active or legacy. I prefer to use my software as long as I want to, and if it's 15 years old, well I want to be able to use that 15 year old software. I'd love to see a thread break on all the great software of all time, that was upgraded to crapware.
Slashdot Mirror
To add to your very correct comments, importing CD's is NOT cheap. Expect to double the cost of your goods if you can get them. So as cheap as mail-order looks on the surface you'll quickly learn the cost of importing.
I think you've been under a rock for the last decade. People don't bother learning about these kind of rights since they don't talk about them on shows like CSI or American Idol. I really think these 'shows' should take the initiative to inform people. Regardless, your penile argument that '...most people infringing are truly infringing' is quite amusing. You tube is not Kazaa... Perhaps you have some valid facts to back that up. Personally I wish there was more copyright infringing posts on You Tube, but thats another topic, real content.
Agreed. If you get sucked into such a auction, then you "deserve" to lose money. Afterwards, with any luck you'll learn not to repeat this again. But who's kidding who.
The proper method of testing is 'two' tests (samples). One at the time of detainment, and another after 20-30 minutes. Actual blood tests can and need only be tested 'once' (ie: needle in arm just once) but they can test this 'over' time instead of just 'at time of sample' as a breath test does. They are very capable of using this information to determine the 'actual' inebriation at time of the event. Either way they are fairly damning to one's non-criminal status. Now lets get back to how accurate is the breath tester!
Personally if it wasn't for all the anti-trust activity against MS, I doubt today would be any different than 10 years ago.
I think MS is greatly responsible for the (lack of) quality drivers in existance. If they truly wished to acheive such a lofty goal they would change there ways....oh wait, they did!
OSX typically runs on hardware that it approves. Its been like that and will be like that. MS wishes it could do the same, but they are in a completely different boat here.
What?!? Just try and install Vista on a non-approved system. HCL has a very important purpose with Windows, I guess some folks just seem to forget or automatically assume that a new OS means a NEW system. It's certainly the easiest way to upgrade windows, just buy a new computer.
So you'll fight that XP runs on Mac hardware now.. Cool! Now lets hope that MS OS doesn't get a bad rap for being on Mac hardware because of poorly written device drivers, there are people out there writing device drivers right now for XP to run on Mac hardware.
Again see my prior comment on the role the OS plays in driver development.
You know this just goes against the entire model of selling content and boxes for content. Most companies sell the boxes at a loss or near loss (Apple is an exception here) to sell the content at premium. Most companies realize that content outsells hardware. At $0.99 or $1.24 per song I really know for a fact that Apple is making 'profit' at this rate. When you see the average royalty at micro-pennies for such a rate, the RIAA is getting their 40%, who gets the rest? Must be Apple's shareholders. I'm not saying my numbers are accurate, but they are pretty realistic. Besides I've never known Apple to get involved with something if they weren't making money at it. You may just want to review their earnings report for the last Q.
BS. Proof of delivery is all eBay cares about, prove that and they forget the whole issue. So if you really had proof of delivery, you wouldn't be out 40k. Besides if you really are out 40k why aren't you at the FBI office in your state right now? They can and will get the details from eBay and investigate.
Dude, Let's not stupify the english language and confuse newbies any more than we have to. X is NOT an OS, frying X is not killing your PC.
Complete BS. Oracle is the KING of SECURITY HOLES.
[snip]
So this guys definition of an idiot was someone who doesn't play with command prompts for a few seconds on Windows and deduce that the undocumented CDS structure must be per VM instanced and hence that file system redirectors would be local to one Dos box. I find that definition funny, because it would mean that all but a tiny handful of the people he meets would be 'idiots'. I'm sorry, why does this surprise you?
Easy to avoid? People have been pointing out that we are rapidly approaching the day when, if you walk down a sidewalk whistling a tune, you'll be arrested and charged with unlicensed performance of a copyrighted work of music.
Fact is that the only practical way to avoid this now is to never say or do anything at all in public (which includes on the Internet). I've tested this a few times by asking a simple question: Suppose I have a tune in my head, and I'd like to discover whether it's something I "composed" myself or is a tune whose copyright is owned by someone. How do I do this?
[snip]
But it's all very unreliable, and depends on the good will (or reasonable lawyers) of corporations, in addition to help from other musicians who stumble across your stuff. In general, there's no way to know that a random public utterance or idly whistling a tune won't be a copyright violation. The only really safe strategy is to be utterly silent in public. On the Internet, this includes learning enough about your computer's innards to guarantee that it isn't exposing any file to outsiders.
The really big point I still constantly see people missing about this, is once you've PERFORMED the work, only THAT WORK is affected by copyright. Any derivative work, unless plagurized (and I think the SAMPLING scene has picked this dead corpse clean) which is a dead horse is not 'included' in the copyright. Matter of a fact I could produce my own version of your material, and publish it to my hearts content.
Even the same band performing the same song is a 'different art'.
As for the above comment, I agree with most of what your saying about the problems with copyright, and in today's corporate reality it's only going to get worse, but this last statement about being silent in public again is laudable at best. Whistle to your hearts content every possible song you like.
As for us being 'responsible to guarantee' is insane logic. I simply quote all the license agreements I've agreed to and state clearly 'I accepted the software with no claims and I used the software with no claims, and hence am not responsible for any possible violations to any claims without first asserting that those prior claims had no 'undo influence' on their claims. Given that the re are no protections to computer users to the 'abilities and performance' of said software, and without source code to review, I cannot see how anyone could determine that you purposefully committed a crime. Remember folks crime is crime. It's called that because it's criminal. If it's not a crime, then who cares?
Now if you don't get a lawyer to present your case it's going to be very hard for any judge to take you seriously.
Damien There are actually no good implementations ATM. Many are looking into just such an appliance, but implementation as a standard may take so many years, we may just evolve around it.
People have been robbing and burgling long before drugs and they will be at it long after this phony war is over. Saying that drug addicts are behind it is foolish. The dangerous criminal element are generally not drug addicts, and they are by far more dangerous to other drug dealers then to regular folk. I agree with the first part wholeheartedly. Pushers are just people too, and many are not even addicts or users. However the latter part about crime not being related to drugs is just blatantly incorrect. I have seen many reports on how drug-use causes crime on many scales. Prostitution, break and enters, theft, even robbery. These crimes are not all committed by users, but there is a good percentage of users who simply cannot afford their habits and simply will do anything to feed that habit. Another big crime is family theft. Stealing money and property to pawn or sell from parents, grandparents, children, etc. it is very common but not as commonly reported to law enforcement. Of course I'm not trying to counter by saying that drug use == committing crime, just that a very tangible portion of crimes are committed by users.
"If" the #$%^@&* installer would 'actually' install everything. How many times have you tried to do something with MS Office only to be told "that has not been installed now, would you like to install it now?" No, I already installed you blasted crapware, why do I have to install now? Oh, and maybe you told it to copy all the files to the hard disk so that when this happens you can quickly install said applet? No, you still need to go find you disk. Blech! Terrible design, and OO 2.0 is superior in every dimension.
Your point is lost now. Even today, is a time when people don't feel the need to secure their (insert term) servers, we call them zombies.
Dude, The morris worm worked by exploiting SMTP, whats your point. The "smart" ones 'fixed' the problem'. It took the rest of the planet 10 years. Typical
I'm not buying any of this. Sure some SMTP servers were open, but not the smart ones. Granted the smart ones were pretty rare. As for dynamic content, this was taken into account, but not 'on-the-fly' dynamic content or 'user-generated' dynamic content were not considered. A Browser would allow one to browse, not alter or change. But it was simple enough to take the content and alter it, and repost it, even linking to the original one. However IP and ownership of the 'content' got in the way. We quickly realized we didn't want 'free' content, or content that anyone could change, so http morphed into a 'way to conduct business' rather than a document protocol. Back in 1991 we were learning about the potential for worms (Remember the Morris Worm!) so this 'era' was not so utopian as you claim. It was then we learned about the issues with DNS that today still hasn't been solved. Do you remember how many sites used to keep up posted with web defacements? It became a big thing in a very short order of time, by 1994 it was starting to get out of hand. If you want to get religious about "what the web was meant for" then you have to reject not just dynamic content, but any web application that goes beyond Sir Tim's original concept of simple shared documents. But of course, people went beyond that from day one. Give geeks a new technology, and they'll hack around with it until they make it do all kinds of stuff that was never imagined by the original designers.Maybe folks should not have kludged interactive application onto http. But I think it was inevitable. There was a huge demand for distributed applications, and the web was the only platform available. As you say, the horse has left the barn. Indeed, he's now surrounded by PETA types armed with tommy guns. We're not going to get him back. No the problem was people didn't like articles being 'reformatted' for http, they found this annoying. Many though MS word format would be the document reader of choice so even word became a mini browser. On top of this many companies tried to pigeon-hole what the web or internet was going to be by dominating the traffic, Again this went contrary to researchers, but marketers were not going to be dissuaded from such common sense. Over time many idea's have died only to be reborn in java or ajax. Flash has become more than a simple animation tool to a completely interactive interface (with many issues of it's own). The real religious aspect of all this is the fact that many developers were not interested in this new direction of http, yet many ex-dotcommer's were more than eager to design a scheme that meant they offered more and better from their web pages. Today's world is testimonial to all that ignorance. Web Application Attacking is rampant! Way to go! We really need to create a true peer to peer client that can do all these wonderful things within a sandbox, so if something gets out of hand (buffer overflow, or directory traversal attempts, etc.) then it doesn't get out of the box.
It isn't difficult to slice through or drill most locks or the doors holding them, let alone picking the lock, but if there is an armed human on the other side that changes the game a bit.
Excuse me but what is informative about stating the obvious. The 'POINT' made by this release (which btw those of us in security now have know for several months) is that the bumping technique used to get these locks 'leave no signs or trace of' circumvention. So the real problem is (with nearly every lock on the market, not just these medeco high security locks) is that bumping them is a real problem.
Unfortunately most power users and advanced users prefer to test the new version waters and this does spark interest and curiosity perhaps even a retail distribution, for instance when Vista came out and everyone was saying how 'problematic' it was did this stop everyone from buying it? No, it was a bit slower than normal but sales are progressing. Not much has changed. For most software out there, Vista simply will not work with it. Sure, there is a lot of software that does work with Vista, but, its not an easy migration for the average software. I mean the most stupid programs need to be 'admin' or 'system' in order to do things and in Vista that's just not happening anymore. More developers need to work on updating their products to work with it, but then there is linux, MacOS, and other options for software. Governments particularily should be working directly to acheive OSI standards rather than some other IP scheme that will in turn hurt future generations of taxpayers.
I think it's terrible the way some companies prefer to simply 'expire' their software like it's no good anymore when if fact if it was good enough once it should remain good enough. I certainly understand it though when a company says they will not upgrade the software or offer bug fixes after it expires. To me that is what make an OS either active or legacy. I prefer to use my software as long as I want to, and if it's 15 years old, well I want to be able to use that 15 year old software. I'd love to see a thread break on all the great software of all time, that was upgraded to crapware.
I just checked my locale and could not find it. Someone have more info on where it's airing?