What you've demonstrated is more a case of vendor lock-in by being trapped on a platform.
Using VC++ and MFC to build a "very involved application ecosystem" that was going to cost an arm and a leg to shitcan and replace with something else was probably very much exactly what Microsoft wanted.
Think of guns as nukes and apply cold war game theory to the problem.
Therein lies the answer.
Important common factors include but are not limited to the inability to trust one side to unilaterally honor its end of the bargain. In an armistice situatiion there is more to gain by hiding a gun in your boot while everyone else lays down arms.
The problem is that it's not economical to have high level redundancy.
Transoceanic cables are fucking expensive, so naturally the law of diminishing returns makes any above and beyond the bare minimum a fool's errand in the vast majority of time where things work properly.
This, in turn, creates a hierarchial structure instead of a partial mesh topology, which in turn makes every node between points A and B a single point of failure.
The famed resiliency of the internet requires redundant connections, and economics by and large suppresses redundancy as inefficient except in cases where information is important enough to demand backup routes for the sake of guaranteed uptime.
And I'm not really surprised. TCP/IP was developed for a military topology with redundant links whereas the real world is a for profit endeavor where lean and mean brings in the green.
Microsoft probably told the OEMs that either they played ball Microsoft's way and locked down the motherboard, or they didn't get to preinstall Windows at all.
In the game of real life it's often profitable to cheat as long as you don't get caught.
All it takes is one company taking the initiative in skirting the rules of good karma for a dishonest dollar to put competitive pressure on others to do the same just to keep up.
And in such a marketplace, what use is it standing by your principles if not cheating will just get you run out of business anyway and only leave the cheater with more market share?
Slashdot Mirror
What you've demonstrated is more a case of vendor lock-in by being trapped on a platform.
Using VC++ and MFC to build a "very involved application ecosystem" that was going to cost an arm and a leg to shitcan and replace with something else was probably very much exactly what Microsoft wanted.
Not to mention the antitrust implications.
Thing is I also think that MS is one of the few companies sleazy enough to try getting away with it.
Think of guns as nukes and apply cold war game theory to the problem.
Therein lies the answer.
Important common factors include but are not limited to the inability to trust one side to unilaterally honor its end of the bargain. In an armistice situatiion there is more to gain by hiding a gun in your boot while everyone else lays down arms.
Considering the precedent established by United States v. $124,700 you may well get your wish sooner than you think.
It's called asserting in rem jurisdiction in a civil forfeiture case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency
If you don't want to GET shot first, don't break into someone's house.
You have a good chance of getting a needle in your arm actually.
It's called "felony murder" when someone dies in the course of a violent crime, and burglary is one of them.
The problem is that it's not economical to have high level redundancy.
Transoceanic cables are fucking expensive, so naturally the law of diminishing returns makes any above and beyond the bare minimum a fool's errand in the vast majority of time where things work properly.
This, in turn, creates a hierarchial structure instead of a partial mesh topology, which in turn makes every node between points A and B a single point of failure.
The famed resiliency of the internet requires redundant connections, and economics by and large suppresses redundancy as inefficient except in cases where information is important enough to demand backup routes for the sake of guaranteed uptime.
And I'm not really surprised. TCP/IP was developed for a military topology with redundant links whereas the real world is a for profit endeavor where lean and mean brings in the green.
Microsoft probably told the OEMs that either they played ball Microsoft's way and locked down the motherboard, or they didn't get to preinstall Windows at all.
MS is probably strongarming them.
The fact that it's called "politically" correct in the first place answers the question.
People in power ALWAYS make the decisions, that's what being IN POWER means.
That's not a bug, it's a feature.
Replace "you" with "politician with an axe to grind" and "lawlord" with "dissident"
That only proves that over 50 percent of all murderers *that get caught* are black.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if racial bias caused more blacks than whites to actually get caught.
In the game of real life it's often profitable to cheat as long as you don't get caught.
All it takes is one company taking the initiative in skirting the rules of good karma for a dishonest dollar to put competitive pressure on others to do the same just to keep up.
And in such a marketplace, what use is it standing by your principles if not cheating will just get you run out of business anyway and only leave the cheater with more market share?
My prediction?
The SEC will consider bitcoins as "unlicensed securities" and start prosecuting people for selling them.
Not to mention that closing the place will save money in the long run.
Doesn't it cost money to *keep it open*?
Doesn't follow.
Guns are regulated because they are dangerous. Same reason that drugs are regulated.
Bittorrent is not dangerous.
It doesn't even have to be for life.
They already broke it by throttling.
A deal is a deal.
Making an example of him so that others are shown their place by example.
Rather similiar to putting someone in the village stocks for all to see.
Seems rather one sided if you can't even use that evidence to sue the government.
Holy fuck, macs have TPM?
DRM doesn't target them, it's just that pirates are so adept that paying customers are the only ones that get hit.
They don't care if you're aiding and abetting or not.
They just want to make you help them by threatening you with a lawsuit if you're not bending over backwards to police things for them.
Because they already have copyright protection.
I guess slashdot moderators and patent law both reward bad behavior then.
When you're in a world of greedy humans all looking out for "number one", incentive means everything.