Potential buyers -- acknowledge Microsoft history
on
A Hands-On Zune Review
·
· Score: 1
Before moderating this as flaimbait, lets take a serious look at 20 years of history.
Microsoft at every advantage has used marketing stategies that would give Machiavelli himself a boner. Even were the Zune technologically superior please remember that Microsoft's strategy is not to provide superior products at competitive prices -- it's to inject themselves into every revenue stream at any expense. Their strategy is more long term, lets cut end this now before its too late.
I strongly beg my fellow slashdotters -- that they use their pocketbooks to speak their conscience. Send Microsoft back to the drawing board and show them that all the evil deeds of the past cannot buy our hearts and minds.
What would be neat is if the extended features like playing music, using cameras, etc., could all draw their power off of a separate battery than the phone. That way you could use as much of the extra features without worrying about killing the phone itself. Naturally during the "recharge" process both batteries would be rejuvinated.
It's my personal belief that average non-technical persons won't tolerate this. I don't say this because I believe people will feel a sense of outrage that most of us feel over Digital Restrictions (thanks RMS) Management but for more practical reasons.
Consumers have become accustomed to using restrictions free media. The prevalence of MP3 and other unencumbered formats have created enough of a precedent that end-users know damned well the "extra restrictions" aren't something that have to be there. Microsoft have become too accustomed to believing that the customer will always eat what they're fed: That is an old Microsoft mindset that won't work for them anymore. Given a choice between having it and not having it people will simply chose not to use it -- it's that simple. The good news is they simply don't have to, there are just too many other alternatives and many of them are legal.
Oh, and the other technical people will react with the normal sense of outrage and not use it. Some of them ("the Johansens") will simply create technology to bypass the nuisance brought on by DRM.
Anyway, back to my point -- it's a good thing because once people seek alternatives the unwanted technology will simply fade away from non-use.
Does anyone remember DIVX (not the video codec, the "other" DIVX)?
If you violate the terms of your registrar's AUP (acceptable-use policy) then you only have your self to blame, you've broken a contract.
Also, it *sounds* as though the domain was registered with fraudulent information (okay, I guess there *could* be a John Smith in Russia). If this is true it would be a violation of ICANN's policy on domain registration, not GoDaddy's.
When congress "asks" individuals or business for anything--records, testimony, etc, is it compulsory? In other words, are you mandated by law to obey them as though it were a court order?
Once upon a time Internet marketers could have had a brighter future. In metaphorical terms I feel that too many of them cooked the goose that laid golden eggs. While the Internet matured they exploited it with spam, adware, unwanted pop-ups, malware, exploits and any other slimy scummy technique they could think of in order to push themselves before unconsenting eyeballs -- be damned whether the user wanted it or not.
The end result is (just speaking for myself mind you) that I *HATE* marketing now. Yes, I admit it. I know it's not PC, but I despise all forms of marketing, even forms that could be considered ethical. I now change the TV channel when a commercial comes on. I change the radio station when an ad comes on the radio. I throw away all my direct marketing ads in the mail without even glancing at it. I use all of the pop-up filtering technology available so that I don't have to see it on the web. I don't want to see ANY of it now.
The thing is I don't think I'm alone, I think there are a following of people who feel the way I do.
How did we reach this state of marketing-hatred? I think perhaps it's related to the attempts by online marketers to prevent me from blocking the ads, whether we're talking about hashes in spam to bypass checksum filters or anti pop-up-blocking technology -- that's when the war on the consumer started and they don't deserve to win.
Someone at Rocket Science somehow didn't know who they were meant to email, so they just sent it to all the addresses they could find....Mr. Egomaniac Editor then wrote a very sensationalised blog entry about the incident, incorrectly referring to it as 'spam'.
Spam (or UCE/UBE--Unsolicited Commercial/Bulk Email) is typically defined as email which is unsolicited in nature. From what you said it sounds as though RS harvested all of the addresses "they could find". It certainly doesn't sound as though they were writing to a list of those who subscribed to receive information from them. If that's true then it wasn't incorrect to refer to it as spam, in fact it matches the definition right on.
I've noticed that spammers always like to infer that spamming is something "the other guy does", never are they actually guilty of spam since they've managed to rationalize it one way or another. As far as my network and systems go (since they are my personal property), it's about consent.
Read the following link about how he maliciously sued Osirusoft, the maintainer of relays.osirusoft.com after having them DDOS'd. It does not shock me to see that this asshole has ended up in handcuffs at all. He has always acted above the law. For those that remember the foonet.net story will rejoyce to see that this shithead is going to PMITA prison.
Note that I did not say he was stupid, hence I post as AC.
"It's kind of hard for us to do that," says Brent Hatch, an attorney with Hatch, James & Dodge in Salt Lake City, "because we don't have it. It was destroyed before it could be given to us."
This goes back to the derivitive works issue.
How can IBM delete something that SCO claims to own? If IBM wrote something and released it into Linux then that should be all you need -- deleted copies of something that was never released is moot. Deleted code created by IBM, if this indeed even occurred, wouldn't be owned by SCO anyway.
As Wells' order stated, "The court finds SCO's arguments unpersuasive. SCO's arguments are akin to SCO telling IBM sorry we are not going to tell you what you did wrong because you already know."
I'm disappointed how many consumers will eat what they're fed. I hack DRM by simply refusing to purchase anything that makes use of it. If everyone did that the problem would solve itself. Remember, it's your money and nobody can force you to buy something you do not want.
Slashdot Mirror
Before moderating this as flaimbait, lets take a serious look at 20 years of history.
Microsoft at every advantage has used marketing stategies that would give Machiavelli himself a boner. Even were the Zune technologically superior please remember that Microsoft's strategy is not to provide superior products at competitive prices -- it's to inject themselves into every revenue stream at any expense. Their strategy is more long term, lets cut end this now before its too late.
I strongly beg my fellow slashdotters -- that they use their pocketbooks to speak their conscience. Send Microsoft back to the drawing board and show them that all the evil deeds of the past cannot buy our hearts and minds.
What would be neat is if the extended features like playing music, using cameras, etc., could all draw their power off of a separate battery than the phone. That way you could use as much of the extra features without worrying about killing the phone itself. Naturally during the "recharge" process both batteries would be rejuvinated.
Aren't these decoys going to clog all of the Internet tubes?
Before you know it they'll want to charge people to receive analog BBC broadcasts.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a MMORPG deserve neither Liberty nor a MMORPG."
just don't touch fark's foobies
It's my personal belief that average non-technical persons won't tolerate this. I don't say this because I believe people will feel a sense of outrage that most of us feel over Digital Restrictions (thanks RMS) Management but for more practical reasons.
Consumers have become accustomed to using restrictions free media. The prevalence of MP3 and other unencumbered formats have created enough of a precedent that end-users know damned well the "extra restrictions" aren't something that have to be there. Microsoft have become too accustomed to believing that the customer will always eat what they're fed: That is an old Microsoft mindset that won't work for them anymore. Given a choice between having it and not having it people will simply chose not to use it -- it's that simple. The good news is they simply don't have to, there are just too many other alternatives and many of them are legal.
Oh, and the other technical people will react with the normal sense of outrage and not use it. Some of them ("the Johansens") will simply create technology to bypass the nuisance brought on by DRM.
Anyway, back to my point -- it's a good thing because once people seek alternatives the unwanted technology will simply fade away from non-use.
Does anyone remember DIVX (not the video codec, the "other" DIVX)?
Yeah, me neither.
Not buy the player.
But google and I have been seeing each other lately -- I think it might be serious too, we've gone out every night this week.
If you violate the terms of your registrar's AUP (acceptable-use policy) then you only have your self to blame, you've broken a contract.
Also, it *sounds* as though the domain was registered with fraudulent information (okay, I guess there *could* be a John Smith in Russia). If this is true it would be a violation of ICANN's policy on domain registration, not GoDaddy's.
greedy bastards! .*?
Does anyone know whether Steve Balmer ever engaged in pretexting?
When congress "asks" individuals or business for anything--records, testimony, etc, is it compulsory? In other words, are you mandated by law to obey them as though it were a court order?
If an investigation proves that HP's Chair approved of this activity I think that we're going to see jail time for Dunn, et al.
Just my prediction (although I ain' Cringely or nothing)
Thank you Monty Python (BTW: You forgot to use quotations)
Apple is slowly becoming the new Microsoft.
Woz would be spinning in his grave if it weren't for that whole "not being dead" thing...
*blinks*
"... Excellent news for TiVo!"
You wouldn't happen to work for TiVo would you?
Once upon a time Internet marketers could have had a brighter future. In metaphorical terms I feel that too many of them cooked the goose that laid golden eggs. While the Internet matured they exploited it with spam, adware, unwanted pop-ups, malware, exploits and any other slimy scummy technique they could think of in order to push themselves before unconsenting eyeballs -- be damned whether the user wanted it or not.
The end result is (just speaking for myself mind you) that I *HATE* marketing now. Yes, I admit it. I know it's not PC, but I despise all forms of marketing, even forms that could be considered ethical. I now change the TV channel when a commercial comes on. I change the radio station when an ad comes on the radio. I throw away all my direct marketing ads in the mail without even glancing at it. I use all of the pop-up filtering technology available so that I don't have to see it on the web. I don't want to see ANY of it now.
The thing is I don't think I'm alone, I think there are a following of people who feel the way I do.
How did we reach this state of marketing-hatred? I think perhaps it's related to the attempts by online marketers to prevent me from blocking the ads, whether we're talking about hashes in spam to bypass checksum filters or anti pop-up-blocking technology -- that's when the war on the consumer started and they don't deserve to win.
Due to plummeting sales Mcdonalds announced plans to add dirt to their menu.
I'm looking at the comments so far and they seem to be broken up into two groups: "We need naked pics" jokes...
I agree, naked pics are a bit too much. I'd be happy with "The Girls of Fedora" swimsuit issue.
This is just like stealing a penny is wrong and still stealing
Actually, stealing an ordinary penny is NOT de facto illegal
He said it was wrong, not illegal.
Someone at Rocket Science somehow didn't know who they were meant to email, so they just sent it to all the addresses they could find....Mr. Egomaniac Editor then wrote a very sensationalised blog entry about the incident, incorrectly referring to it as 'spam'.
Spam (or UCE/UBE--Unsolicited Commercial/Bulk Email) is typically defined as email which is unsolicited in nature. From what you said it sounds as though RS harvested all of the addresses "they could find". It certainly doesn't sound as though they were writing to a list of those who subscribed to receive information from them. If that's true then it wasn't incorrect to refer to it as spam, in fact it matches the definition right on.
I've noticed that spammers always like to infer that spamming is something "the other guy does", never are they actually guilty of spam since they've managed to rationalize it one way or another. As far as my network and systems go (since they are my personal property), it's about consent.
Read the following link about how he maliciously sued Osirusoft, the maintainer of relays.osirusoft.com after having them DDOS'd. It does not shock me to see that this asshole has ended up in handcuffs at all. He has always acted above the law. For those that remember the foonet.net story will rejoyce to see that this shithead is going to PMITA prison.
Note that I did not say he was stupid, hence I post as AC.
"It's kind of hard for us to do that," says Brent Hatch, an attorney with Hatch, James & Dodge in Salt Lake City, "because we don't have it. It was destroyed before it could be given to us."
This goes back to the derivitive works issue.
How can IBM delete something that SCO claims to own? If IBM wrote something and released it into Linux then that should be all you need -- deleted copies of something that was never released is moot. Deleted code created by IBM, if this indeed even occurred, wouldn't be owned by SCO anyway.
As Wells' order stated, "The court finds SCO's arguments unpersuasive. SCO's arguments are akin to SCO telling IBM sorry we are not going to tell you what you did wrong because you already know."
I'm disappointed how many consumers will eat what they're fed. I hack DRM by simply refusing to purchase anything that makes use of it. If everyone did that the problem would solve itself. Remember, it's your money and nobody can force you to buy something you do not want.