can you really see the herds of western civilisation getting riled at this?
Should I care what the herds of western civilization think? To do so would imply that I (and any other/. reader who cares), am willing to reduce my own morals/ethics to the lowest common denominator - and I assure you, that's not the case. I still haven't purchased a new CD, and it's been about three years now. I don't do Napster, either.
Your opinions, assistance and even rants are distributed globally to a variety of servers that are out of your control.
Yes, but with one BIG difference. Back then, in order to find all the posts from a specific John Q. Public, one would have had to monitor every single newsgroup - something that simply wasn't feasible at the time.
A closer analogy would be an editorial in the local newspaper. Most likely the topic you're commenting on is only of local interest. There's nothing to stop somebody from cutting it out and placing it in a scrap book. There's nothing preventing a library, even if its in another country, from subscribing to the paper and keeping it in its archives.
Yes, perhaps a better analogy. But even for those who clip the article and keep it, the exposure of the original author is very limited compared to what has become of usenet, simply because the effort required to retrieve the article isn't insignificant.
What do you think of EULAs that say, "By opening this package, you agree to all the terms and conditions contained herein," without knowing SQUAT about what the terms and conditions say? No one is clairvoyant, and no one posting back in 1984 had even an inkling that the messages they posted would become part of a massive, easily-searchable archive. It's one thing to tell someone the rules first, and then let them decide if they want to participate, but don't change the rules mid-game and expect them to blindly accept it.
But consider this: how many people, who THEN, were posting their messages within the confines of single, well-targeted discussion group, thought that at some point in the future, anyone with an internet connection could almost effortlessly find those messages.
It's like going to a cozy restaurant to meet with some friends- it's a public place, but I also think it's a reasonable expectation that noone broadcast your conversations to the entire world.
n awful lot has changed in the Win32 world since Windows 95 premiered, not the least of which is the latest switch to the NT kernel for the consumer OS as well as the "pro" OS. This I think is the main reason Microsoft is abandoning Win95 support--it makes sense to stop supporting the crashy Win9x kernel as quickly as possible, now that the home version of the OS is built on NT. Let's face it: Win9x is a huge pain in the ass and support nightmare for average joes. They're always mucking something in that delicate little ecosystem up, and needing help. Compared to Win9x, WinXP is practically uncrashable and much harder for home users to screw up. The sooner Win9x is retired, the better for everyone, not just MS. And that process begins with retiring each release in turn.
Fine...then give us Win XP with a Win-95-type license. It's already rediculous that M$ produces such crap to begin with, but along with getting it right, M$ is also tightening the thumbscrews, completely undermining freedom of choice.
To the Auto industry's credit, there's a very active aftermarket business. Try that with Microsoft. With a car, it's "replace the old, worn out part with a new one." With a vendor who supports Winders, it's "we'll have to code all kinds of stupid work-arounds."
Isn't it hilarious the way that Ellison is attempting to draw some kind of comparison between using his product, and an ability to deter terrorism? What happens when some enterprising underworld operative figures out how to create phony versions of the national ID? The government might as well be using FileMaker.
---
Dear Osama,
We're using Oracle now, so you can't bomb us anymore. Larry Ellison says so.
Information was meant to be free. Keep it so, and people will come.
Interesting anecdote, but the more I read comments like this, the more I tend to disagree with them - and for a very simple reason: the cost of production. Maybe in its rawest, most primitive form, one might be able to make the 'information is free' argument, but in a modern society, information is anything BUT free - minimally, there is the cost of both acquisition and distribution. Let's be real - It's not a question of being free, it's a question of who will bear the cost.
It's the slow erosion of what we now know as national sovreignty. While it's a good idea to be a good global citizen, globalization will mandate that certain factors totally removed from a supposedly sovreign nation, will limit the options in some way, available to its citizens. Sound good?
Anyone ever tried using E-Trade's latest incarnation with Netscape on a Macintosh? It won't fly. Period. It just sits there with a mostly-blank page, trying to figure out what to to do this with this "netscape" thing.
I disagree - what you don't take into consideration is that time and technology change requirements, processes, and expectations. While there may be some fundamental similarities between what we're trying to do now, and what we have done, the rules have most likely changed.
They don't control any major hardware that the rest of the world needs. While they have a number of products of varying quality, they don't control anything completely indispensable.
What????? Micro$oft is so entrenched in the average business' workflow (today), switching to something else could easily be as catastrophic as those considering a new mainframe vendor (back when IBM reigned supreme). Consider the cost of conversion, the time required, the problems, employee re-training, etc. I certainly agree that M$ doesn't have a lock on the hardware market, I don't see where that makes any difference - you can be locked to a specific software vendor just as easily.
Micro$oft didn't SET any standards....it just made it nearly impossible to consider alternatives. In other words, M$ may have become a standard, but only by default.
Companies like Macromedia (Flash), Adobe (Photoshop), and Corel (Painter) SET standards - these companies produce software, that while not without their problems, is quite innovative.
I am posting this in a forum about them taking over the Internet.
What's so intriguing about it? M$'s modus operandi is simple: "Let's do what they're doing." They did it with Windows when the MacOS first appeared (and many an M$ droid had fun calling it a "toy"), they did it with the browser, and it has happened in numerous other ways. I keep hearing Gates mention the word "innovation," yet I have yet to see one thing from M$ that qualifies: It's always the copy-and-extend paradigm over and over again.
Who is to say that when MS gets a big stranglehold on the Net they won't start censoring content provided by others.
Hey...M$ already has these stupid clauses in their FrontPage EULA that not only restrict freedom of speech, but LINKING to sites with certain content. What will prevent MS from applying this to the OS and their internet service? It seems like the next logical step. And what if something were eventually built into the OS that made it incompatible with any online service except MSN?
And get this...just for the hell of it, I toddled on over the MSN site, and started reading their licensing agreement. To wit:
However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting ("Posting") your Submission you are granting Microsoft, its affiliated companies and necessary sublicensees permission to use your Submission in connection with the operation of their Internet businesses (including, without limitation, all MSN Sites/Services), including, without limitation, the license rights to: copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, translate and reformat your Submission; to publish your name in connection with your Submission; and the right to sublicense such rights to any supplier of a MSN Site/Service.
Uh...so if I have an MSN-based web page with images I've created (for display purposed only), or music I've written (in the form of MP3 files), posting it to the MSN site grants M$ the aforementioned liberties (to basically do whatever they please with my IP)?
But don't bitch out IBM for working the system. They have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value.
Ethics be damned, right?
The sad fact is that so many companies are replacing real competence in the business arena (that is, innovation, providing GOOD, competitive products or services, etc), with underhanded tactics. I don't care what IBM's revenue is, working the patent system is the sign of a weak company. This kind of behavior reminds me of the scavengers that surround a carcass after the kill - little or no work, but far too much of the glory.
I think gameplay is important, but I have to be honest - when I first sat down with Bond (Goldeneye) on the N64, I was dumbfounded. Part of the reason is that the environment was so immersive. Kill a guard, and he falls very similar to the way a real person might. It would have been even more immersive if they'd allowed the explosives (mines and grenades) affect the physical characteristics of not just the nearest table, chair, or crate, but the BUILDING. Why not be able to bring an entire building down, or blow a hole in a wall? (I mean, in one level, you had to shoot out a window anyway, so why not?) This might even make it more challenging - if you're too careless with the explosives, you could risk being injured or killed by falling debris. For me, it's the immersive quality that has me going *back* to games like Bond every now and then.
As always, there's a line of "reasonableness", for lack of a better word, which shouldn't be crossed.
Yes- this was back when companies viewed customers as the valuable resource worthy of respect that they were. Now, unfortunately, customers as a group have become lazy and spineless as well.
It sounds to me that he's just doing what economics demand--meet needs.
I agree with your sentiment that he's meeting a need, but it's a need that has been created not by the end consumer, but by the record companies. That's perfectly OK. What amazes me is why people still don't get it. I understand if you might have surreptitiously ended up with a CD because you didn't know it was protected, but once the word is out, people have no reason to complain (or copy it illegally) if they buy it anyway, or get it from another source without paying for it. LET THE MARKET WORK. What's the value of a copy-protected CD if it sells only a few thousand copies?
Also, imagine the burden this may end up putting on retail outlets - I should reasonably expect to ask if the CD is copy protected, and refuse to buy it if it is. I should also expect to be able to return it if if there was no way of making this determination beforehand. This puts retailers in a very precarious position, and they may well refuse to sell anything that's copy protected, deciding that it's just not worth the hassle. What'll the record companies say then?
Re:Interesting indeed
on
XBox Delayed
·
· Score: 1
I never quite thought about this. The existing hardware vendors have their stuff very polished. I've had Bond freeze a couple of times on the N-64, but only after leaving in on to the left of forever. Enter M$. A buggy OS, software, or hardware could be just what the doctor ordered, inspiring M$ to leave the gaming hardware the pros.
Screw that, I say we actually enforce the laws we already have and cooperate with other countries.
We have to look no further than the Columbine incident. The first thing the legislators did was talk about passing new laws. All the while, people were asking, "what good will new laws do if the existing ones aren't enforced?"
Congress can pass all the laws it wants, or mandate all the safety, encryption, and surveylance policies it wants, but if human inability, error, negligence, or malfeasance renders them useless for preventing terrorism, what has been accomplished?
Re:Training and Planning are the keys.
on
KDE 2.2.1 Up
·
· Score: 1
Linux is soooo ready for the desktop.
I wish that were true. There are still a few very key issues that need to be worked out.
First, is the issue of upgrades. Upgrades should be painless, prompt, and transparent. In other words, dependencies are no longer the user's problem, but a problem to be resolved by whatever upgrade method is used. Even if upgrades are left to the admins, an organization will definitely have to look at TCO issues, and the amount of resources required to make Linux work.
Second, I've noticed, using KWord, for example, that the concept of "what you see is what you get" doesn't quite apply. I suspect that this is because ghostscript, when producing the output, has its own ideas about how something should look. Nonetheless, this is old hat. "What you see is what you get" has now become a reasonable expectation on the part of the average user, and need to be a part of Linux.
On the positive side, KDE and KOffice look very cool and very polished. I applaud the developers for their effort.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you REALLY need a PDA to tell you when to buy corn and milk? What's next - will it tell you when you need to go potty?
Do they give a rat's ass about whether you NEED corn or milk, or even want it? NO. They want your money.
Somehow a society of spendroids doesn't sound very appealing.
can you really see the herds of western civilisation getting riled at this?
/. reader who cares), am willing to reduce my own morals/ethics to the lowest common denominator - and I assure you, that's not the case. I still haven't purchased a new CD, and it's been about three years now. I don't do Napster, either.
Should I care what the herds of western civilization think? To do so would imply that I (and any other
Your opinions, assistance and even rants are distributed globally to a variety of servers that are out of your control.
Yes, but with one BIG difference. Back then, in order to find all the posts from a specific John Q. Public, one would have had to monitor every single newsgroup - something that simply wasn't feasible at the time.
A closer analogy would be an editorial in the local newspaper. Most likely the topic you're commenting on is only of local interest. There's nothing to stop somebody from cutting it out and placing it in a scrap book. There's nothing preventing a library, even if its in another country, from subscribing to the paper and keeping it in its archives.
Yes, perhaps a better analogy. But even for those who clip the article and keep it, the exposure of the original author is very limited compared to what has become of usenet, simply because the effort required to retrieve the article isn't insignificant.
What do you think of EULAs that say, "By opening this package, you agree to all the terms and conditions contained herein," without knowing SQUAT about what the terms and conditions say? No one is clairvoyant, and no one posting back in 1984 had even an inkling that the messages they posted would become part of a massive, easily-searchable archive. It's one thing to tell someone the rules first, and then let them decide if they want to participate, but don't change the rules mid-game and expect them to blindly accept it.
But consider this: how many people, who THEN, were posting their messages within the confines of single, well-targeted discussion group, thought that at some point in the future, anyone with an internet connection could almost effortlessly find those messages.
It's like going to a cozy restaurant to meet with some friends- it's a public place, but I also think it's a reasonable expectation that noone broadcast your conversations to the entire world.
n awful lot has changed in the Win32 world since Windows 95 premiered, not the least of which is the latest switch to the NT kernel for the consumer OS as well as the "pro" OS. This I think is the main reason Microsoft is abandoning Win95 support--it makes sense to stop supporting the crashy Win9x kernel as quickly as possible, now that the home version of the OS is built on NT. Let's face it: Win9x is a huge pain in the ass and support nightmare for average joes. They're always mucking something in that delicate little ecosystem up, and needing help. Compared to Win9x, WinXP is practically uncrashable and much harder for home users to screw up. The sooner Win9x is retired, the better for everyone, not just MS. And that process begins with retiring each release in turn.
Fine...then give us Win XP with a Win-95-type license. It's already rediculous that M$ produces such crap to begin with, but along with getting it right, M$ is also tightening the thumbscrews, completely undermining freedom of choice.
To the Auto industry's credit, there's a very active aftermarket business. Try that with Microsoft. With a car, it's "replace the old, worn out part with a new one." With a vendor who supports Winders, it's "we'll have to code all kinds of stupid work-arounds."
Isn't it hilarious the way that Ellison is attempting to draw some kind of comparison between using his product, and an ability to deter terrorism? What happens when some enterprising underworld operative figures out how to create phony versions of the national ID? The government might as well be using FileMaker.
---
Dear Osama,
We're using Oracle now, so you can't bomb us anymore. Larry Ellison says so.
Sincerely,
The US Government.
Information was meant to be free. Keep it so, and people will come. Interesting anecdote, but the more I read comments like this, the more I tend to disagree with them - and for a very simple reason: the cost of production. Maybe in its rawest, most primitive form, one might be able to make the 'information is free' argument, but in a modern society, information is anything BUT free - minimally, there is the cost of both acquisition and distribution. Let's be real - It's not a question of being free, it's a question of who will bear the cost.
That if the research is funded by a government grant, or any method of public funding, the patent rightfully belongs to the public!
It's the slow erosion of what we now know as national sovreignty. While it's a good idea to be a good global citizen, globalization will mandate that certain factors totally removed from a supposedly sovreign nation, will limit the options in some way, available to its citizens. Sound good?
Anyone ever tried using E-Trade's latest incarnation with Netscape on a Macintosh? It won't fly. Period. It just sits there with a mostly-blank page, trying to figure out what to to do this with this "netscape" thing.
And for Pete's sake, you shouldn't use dark-colored links on a dark background! Duh.
I disagree - what you don't take into consideration is that time and technology change requirements, processes, and expectations. While there may be some fundamental similarities between what we're trying to do now, and what we have done, the rules have most likely changed.
They don't control any major hardware that the rest of the world needs. While they have a number of products of varying quality, they don't control anything completely indispensable.
What????? Micro$oft is so entrenched in the average business' workflow (today), switching to something else could easily be as catastrophic as those considering a new mainframe vendor (back when IBM reigned supreme). Consider the cost of conversion, the time required, the problems, employee re-training, etc. I certainly agree that M$ doesn't have a lock on the hardware market, I don't see where that makes any difference - you can be locked to a specific software vendor just as easily.
Micro$oft didn't SET any standards....it just made it nearly impossible to consider alternatives. In other words, M$ may have become a standard, but only by default.
Companies like Macromedia (Flash), Adobe (Photoshop), and Corel (Painter) SET standards - these companies produce software, that while not without their problems, is quite innovative.
I am posting this in a forum about them taking over the Internet.
What's so intriguing about it? M$'s modus operandi is simple: "Let's do what they're doing." They did it with Windows when the MacOS first appeared (and many an M$ droid had fun calling it a "toy"), they did it with the browser, and it has happened in numerous other ways. I keep hearing Gates mention the word "innovation," yet I have yet to see one thing from M$ that qualifies: It's always the copy-and-extend paradigm over and over again.
Who is to say that when MS gets a big stranglehold on the Net they won't start censoring content provided by others.
Hey...M$ already has these stupid clauses in their FrontPage EULA that not only restrict freedom of speech, but LINKING to sites with certain content. What will prevent MS from applying this to the OS and their internet service? It seems like the next logical step. And what if something were eventually built into the OS that made it incompatible with any online service except MSN?
And get this...just for the hell of it, I toddled on over the MSN site, and started reading their licensing agreement. To wit:
However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting ("Posting") your Submission you are granting Microsoft, its affiliated companies and necessary sublicensees permission to use your Submission in connection with the operation of their Internet businesses (including, without limitation, all MSN Sites/Services), including, without limitation, the license rights to: copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, translate and reformat your Submission; to publish your name in connection with your Submission; and the right to sublicense such rights to any supplier of a MSN Site/Service.
Uh...so if I have an MSN-based web page with images I've created (for display purposed only), or music I've written (in the form of MP3 files), posting it to the MSN site grants M$ the aforementioned liberties (to basically do whatever they please with my IP)?
But don't bitch out IBM for working the system. They have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value.
Ethics be damned, right?
The sad fact is that so many companies are replacing real competence in the business arena (that is, innovation, providing GOOD, competitive products or services, etc), with underhanded tactics. I don't care what IBM's revenue is, working the patent system is the sign of a weak company. This kind of behavior reminds me of the scavengers that surround a carcass after the kill - little or no work, but far too much of the glory.
I think gameplay is important, but I have to be honest - when I first sat down with Bond (Goldeneye) on the N64, I was dumbfounded. Part of the reason is that the environment was so immersive. Kill a guard, and he falls very similar to the way a real person might. It would have been even more immersive if they'd allowed the explosives (mines and grenades) affect the physical characteristics of not just the nearest table, chair, or crate, but the BUILDING. Why not be able to bring an entire building down, or blow a hole in a wall? (I mean, in one level, you had to shoot out a window anyway, so why not?) This might even make it more challenging - if you're too careless with the explosives, you could risk being injured or killed by falling debris. For me, it's the immersive quality that has me going *back* to games like Bond every now and then.
As always, there's a line of "reasonableness", for lack of a better word, which shouldn't be crossed.
Yes- this was back when companies viewed customers as the valuable resource worthy of respect that they were. Now, unfortunately, customers as a group have become lazy and spineless as well.
It sounds to me that he's just doing what economics demand--meet needs.
I agree with your sentiment that he's meeting a need, but it's a need that has been created not by the end consumer, but by the record companies. That's perfectly OK. What amazes me is why people still don't get it. I understand if you might have surreptitiously ended up with a CD because you didn't know it was protected, but once the word is out, people have no reason to complain (or copy it illegally) if they buy it anyway, or get it from another source without paying for it. LET THE MARKET WORK. What's the value of a copy-protected CD if it sells only a few thousand copies?
Also, imagine the burden this may end up putting on retail outlets - I should reasonably expect to ask if the CD is copy protected, and refuse to buy it if it is. I should also expect to be able to return it if if there was no way of making this determination beforehand. This puts retailers in a very precarious position, and they may well refuse to sell anything that's copy protected, deciding that it's just not worth the hassle. What'll the record companies say then?
I never quite thought about this. The existing hardware vendors have their stuff very polished. I've had Bond freeze a couple of times on the N-64, but only after leaving in on to the left of forever. Enter M$. A buggy OS, software, or hardware could be just what the doctor ordered, inspiring M$ to leave the gaming hardware the pros.
Screw that, I say we actually enforce the laws we already have and cooperate with other countries.
We have to look no further than the Columbine incident. The first thing the legislators did was talk about passing new laws. All the while, people were asking, "what good will new laws do if the existing ones aren't enforced?"
Congress can pass all the laws it wants, or mandate all the safety, encryption, and surveylance policies it wants, but if human inability, error, negligence, or malfeasance renders them useless for preventing terrorism, what has been accomplished?
Linux is soooo ready for the desktop.
I wish that were true. There are still a few very key issues that need to be worked out. First, is the issue of upgrades. Upgrades should be painless, prompt, and transparent. In other words, dependencies are no longer the user's problem, but a problem to be resolved by whatever upgrade method is used. Even if upgrades are left to the admins, an organization will definitely have to look at TCO issues, and the amount of resources required to make Linux work. Second, I've noticed, using KWord, for example, that the concept of "what you see is what you get" doesn't quite apply. I suspect that this is because ghostscript, when producing the output, has its own ideas about how something should look. Nonetheless, this is old hat. "What you see is what you get" has now become a reasonable expectation on the part of the average user, and need to be a part of Linux.
On the positive side, KDE and KOffice look very cool and very polished. I applaud the developers for their effort.