If you make a purchase where you have to deal with five separate vendors for rebates (as did the person in the article), aside from potentially not getting your refund, you now have FIVE MORE commercial vendors with your name, phone number, and address.
For me peronally, I don't care how much the rebate is...it's just not worth it to prostitute myself like that.
Instead of giving the software away for free, by all means, sell it. But then, you can take advantage of a very common commercial gimmick, the big players have come to rely on: the mail-in rebate.
The open source community can develop the first commercial entity to offer 100% rebates. Or, forget the mail-in stuff altogether - make it an instant rebate at the time of purchase.
that the more surveilance power we give law enforcement, the more ability they have to prevent crime.
It also offers a greater opportunity to commit crime. This isn't something that needs a lot of posturing and theorizing, because it has already happened.
Let's also talk about crime prevention. The notion of prevention, taken to extreme, will annihilate certain constitutionally-guaranteed rights. There's no such thing as "too much" prevention, because there's no way you can prove that the absence of a certain measure would have resulted in more of something that never happened. Where does it stop?
In addition the board of directors of Oracle has to approve the charity and it will be given in Oracle's name not ellson.
The fact that the board is approving it doesn't much matter. My understanding is that these days, boards are stacked with CEOs or senior managment from other companies. These are the same people that keep elevating CEO salaries and other perks in order to stay "competitive". Each time this happens, they're essentially giving themselves a raise. They aren't looking out for shareholders, other than to do what is minimally necessary to avoid any lawsuits.
I believe that with lawyers being the only ones who are really "remedied" in a class-action suit, it's almost not worth it to pursue them any more. While you may end up with a judgement against the offending party, you, a member of the class that was harmed, often get nothing. This could be a real problem, as class-action suits can be an effective tool for keeping people like Ellison in line. But then, if I get nothing out of it save to contribute to some greedy law firm's bottom line (in a siginificant way, mind you), why bother?
I have a telco background so I'm understandably biased when it comes to defending them -- but no matter how much people hate the phone company I wish they would stop rooting for it's downfall.
So do I. I wish they'd just make it happen and get it over with.
Actually, it's not so much that I wish they'd make it happen, as I wish they'd make it very clear they they can make it happen, and will do so, if policies become too unreasonable.
Notice any gas shortages lately? I find it disturbing that the oil companies where touting a shortage of supply as the reason that prices where climbing as high as they did. Suddently, after reporting record profits for the latest quarter, the "shortage" somehow magically disappeared. Absent any reasonable explanation, I believe it was a true case of market manipulation, that had people paying out the ASS so that Big Oil could line its own pockets.
Unfortunately, I'm willing to bet that everyone went right back to their pre-ripoff purchasing habits after the price decrease.
or maybe even write a printer driver so that something I buy actually works with my open sores PC.
Excuse me, but isn't it the vendor that's respsonsible for providing drivers? If you want to place some blame, jump on their ass.
Linux contributors have tried to pick up some of the slack, but because of the fact that everything that isn't open-source is most likely proprietary, this is not an easy hurdle to overcome.
It's obvious that the Register was looking for filler, because this article wastes a good deal of space with absolutely NOTHING of substance.
As we've seen with iTunes, the reason that the RIAA wants Apple to tier its pricing is so that it (the RIAA) can continue to manipulate the market through its pricing- much the same way that is currently done with payola to radio stations. If you give customers a deal where they can "choose any X channels for y dollars" you lose the ability to manipulate the market peception of what's supposedly "good" and what isn't.
But if you fine a corporation enough to actually hurt it, a lot of innocent people lose jobs. So what's the solution to this?
This almost sounds like the "do it for the children" mantra. The solution is that if a corporation does something stupid, it gets penalized. You can't hold justice hostage to [insert sob story here].
Long term, it might help if any settlement resulted in smacking the senior management around a little, too, making them fully aware that they will be accountable if they violate the law.
I was going to say that Verisign has quashed any competition with respect to the provision of SSL certificates, but it appears that there are alternatives available (some of them much more competitively priced, in fact- https://www.registerfly.com/ssl/ for example. However, I did notice that they use something called a ChoicePoint Unique Identifier. Due to the security issues with ChoicePoint, I find it rather ironic that they are issuing identifiers (purpose unknown) for something related to security.
No, he was taken to task for parts of the government whose incompetence led to breakdowns in communication and followup. I'm not sure how anyone realistically expects that centralizing the incompetence will yield much improvement.
Thanks for posing this - but there's something I'm not understanding. The linked ACLU article is dated 11/21/2005. The most recent blog entry in the link you provided is 8/2/2005. I'd have to wonder why the ACLU is pursuing a case, that according to the blog, has become a non-issue. The ACLU link also mentions that this is type of selective attendance is not unique to the Colorado visit, even going so far as to suggest that it was official Whitehouse policy to remove anyone with opposing viewpoints.
If the name Eisenhower doesn't ring a bell with anyone, I'd suggest some serious reading. During Eisnhower's reign, the FBI became what some might claim was dangerously close to a government-sponsored domestic terrorist group. It was commonly tasked with the disruption of peoples' lives that did not see eye to with the stated objectives of the government. The fact that part of this effort deals with counterintelligence is even more hideous - the story is already written, and it's title is COINTELPRO. It's just being adapted to accommodate several decades of technological advancement.
When consumers "do their part", they are accused of wrongdoing.
The willful violation of someone's copyright is not "doing their part." It's circumventing the issue entirely - snd not because it's effective, or because it will work, but because it's easier than doing the right thing. In fact, this laziness on the part of consumers has created quite a little quagmire, because now the media companies can always raise the specter of illegal copying as a reason for declining sales.
So what are we to do? We can legitimately point our fingers now, but no one listens.
Assuming that consumers can reign in their penchant for copyright violation, they have the only tool they'll ever need, which stands ready at their beck and call- control over their spending. It's surprisingly easy to decide NOT to buy something. It requires no gas, no insurance, no loans, or any other obligation - all it requires is a little bit of discipline.
Ideally, when the revenue of the media companies starts to slide enough that there's no way it can be reasonably blamed on illegal copying, they'll be faced with two options: they can continue on their current path, pointing the finger at everyone else (eventually leading to their demise), or they can wise up and develop a new, more appealing business model.
The biggest problem I see in all of this is that most consumers are only willing to entertain two options...lip service, and copyright violation - neither of which has accomplished much of anything. They simply refuse to do the one thing that will make their voice heard.
Replace that phrase with, "an adept understanding of consumer appeal" and I think you'll be spot on. The problems with the screen on the Nano, and the non-replaceable battery in the iPod don't exactly qualify these products as engineering masterpieces, in my opinion.
On the contrary, I'd argue that it's not broken at all - it's just a victim of a two-sided issue, of which both sides are behaving very badly. As long as consumers refuse to allow it to work, it won't work. Only after consumers do their part, can they legitimately point the finger at the media companies.
But what are the chances of hearing something like, "let me get back to you - I'd like to get up to speed with our customer care center." A few hours later, "I regret to inform you, but this particular issue is not within the bounds of your current support agreement. However, we'd be happy to provide immediate asstance for an additional fee of [insert $$$$ here]."
Remember, *nothing* was stolen during the p2p transaction, so she didnt actually *lose* anything, it is only a reduction in the vague concept of 'potential' ( i.e. unprovable ) sales.
When every anyone argues that nothing is stolen, meaning that nothing is physically taken, they always seem to overlook one key factor...the person involved in the acquisition unquestionably now has something of value in their possession. I'd like to see someone justify the notion that by virtue of the fact that Persion A has created something of value, that Person B is automatically is entitled to whatever benefit it may bring.
I'm not a fan of the *AA monopoly at all, but I do think the entitlement mentality that seems to be a large part of the p2p ethos, is rather repugnant.
Slashdot Mirror
The Sept. 11 commission criticized the FBI's lack of information sharing that could have helped prevent the terrorist attacks.
Were they aware of this marvelous piece of technology called the telephone? I don't think they cost much, either.
Slightly OT, but If only the same were true for corporate CEOs.
If you make a purchase where you have to deal with five separate vendors for rebates (as did the person in the article), aside from potentially not getting your refund, you now have FIVE MORE commercial vendors with your name, phone number, and address.
For me peronally, I don't care how much the rebate is...it's just not worth it to prostitute myself like that.
Instead of giving the software away for free, by all means, sell it. But then, you can take advantage of a very common commercial gimmick, the big players have come to rely on: the mail-in rebate.
The open source community can develop the first commercial entity to offer 100% rebates. Or, forget the mail-in stuff altogether - make it an instant rebate at the time of purchase.
that the more surveilance power we give law enforcement, the more ability they have to prevent crime.
It also offers a greater opportunity to commit crime. This isn't something that needs a lot of posturing and theorizing, because it has already happened.
Let's also talk about crime prevention. The notion of prevention, taken to extreme, will annihilate certain constitutionally-guaranteed rights. There's no such thing as "too much" prevention, because there's no way you can prove that the absence of a certain measure would have resulted in more of something that never happened. Where does it stop?
In addition the board of directors of Oracle has to approve the charity and it will be given in Oracle's name not ellson.
The fact that the board is approving it doesn't much matter. My understanding is that these days, boards are stacked with CEOs or senior managment from other companies. These are the same people that keep elevating CEO salaries and other perks in order to stay "competitive". Each time this happens, they're essentially giving themselves a raise. They aren't looking out for shareholders, other than to do what is minimally necessary to avoid any lawsuits.
I believe that with lawyers being the only ones who are really "remedied" in a class-action suit, it's almost not worth it to pursue them any more. While you may end up with a judgement against the offending party, you, a member of the class that was harmed, often get nothing. This could be a real problem, as class-action suits can be an effective tool for keeping people like Ellison in line. But then, if I get nothing out of it save to contribute to some greedy law firm's bottom line (in a siginificant way, mind you), why bother?
I have a telco background so I'm understandably biased when it comes to defending them -- but no matter how much people hate the phone company I wish they would stop rooting for it's downfall.
So do I. I wish they'd just make it happen and get it over with.
Actually, it's not so much that I wish they'd make it happen, as I wish they'd make it very clear they they can make it happen, and will do so, if policies become too unreasonable.
Notice any gas shortages lately? I find it disturbing that the oil companies where touting a shortage of supply as the reason that prices where climbing as high as they did. Suddently, after reporting record profits for the latest quarter, the "shortage" somehow magically disappeared. Absent any reasonable explanation, I believe it was a true case of market manipulation, that had people paying out the ASS so that Big Oil could line its own pockets.
Unfortunately, I'm willing to bet that everyone went right back to their pre-ripoff purchasing habits after the price decrease.
or maybe even write a printer driver so that something I buy actually works with my open sores PC.
Excuse me, but isn't it the vendor that's respsonsible for providing drivers? If you want to place some blame, jump on their ass.
Linux contributors have tried to pick up some of the slack, but because of the fact that everything that isn't open-source is most likely proprietary, this is not an easy hurdle to overcome.
It's obvious that the Register was looking for filler, because this article wastes a good deal of space with absolutely NOTHING of substance.
As we've seen with iTunes, the reason that the RIAA wants Apple to tier its pricing is so that it (the RIAA) can continue to manipulate the market through its pricing- much the same way that is currently done with payola to radio stations. If you give customers a deal where they can "choose any X channels for y dollars" you lose the ability to manipulate the market peception of what's supposedly "good" and what isn't.
One down and 49 to go.
Microsoft....competing.
Thank you for the link : )
But if you fine a corporation enough to actually hurt it, a lot of innocent people lose jobs. So what's the solution to this?
This almost sounds like the "do it for the children" mantra. The solution is that if a corporation does something stupid, it gets penalized. You can't hold justice hostage to [insert sob story here].
Long term, it might help if any settlement resulted in smacking the senior management around a little, too, making them fully aware that they will be accountable if they violate the law.
I was going to say that Verisign has quashed any competition with respect to the provision of SSL certificates, but it appears that there are alternatives available (some of them much more competitively priced, in fact- https://www.registerfly.com/ssl/ for example. However, I did notice that they use something called a ChoicePoint Unique Identifier. Due to the security issues with ChoicePoint, I find it rather ironic that they are issuing identifiers (purpose unknown) for something related to security.
No, he was taken to task for parts of the government whose incompetence led to breakdowns in communication and followup. I'm not sure how anyone realistically expects that centralizing the incompetence will yield much improvement.
Hm...maybe Saddam DID have WMD after all...and hid them here in the US! Eureka!
Thanks for posing this - but there's something I'm not understanding. The linked ACLU article is dated 11/21/2005. The most recent blog entry in the link you provided is 8/2/2005. I'd have to wonder why the ACLU is pursuing a case, that according to the blog, has become a non-issue. The ACLU link also mentions that this is type of selective attendance is not unique to the Colorado visit, even going so far as to suggest that it was official Whitehouse policy to remove anyone with opposing viewpoints.
Case in point:
2 1.html
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/21679prs200511
If the name Eisenhower doesn't ring a bell with anyone, I'd suggest some serious reading. During Eisnhower's reign, the FBI became what some might claim was dangerously close to a government-sponsored domestic terrorist group. It was commonly tasked with the disruption of peoples' lives that did not see eye to with the stated objectives of the government. The fact that part of this effort deals with counterintelligence is even more hideous - the story is already written, and it's title is COINTELPRO. It's just being adapted to accommodate several decades of technological advancement.
When consumers "do their part", they are accused of wrongdoing.
The willful violation of someone's copyright is not "doing their part." It's circumventing the issue entirely - snd not because it's effective, or because it will work, but because it's easier than doing the right thing. In fact, this laziness on the part of consumers has created quite a little quagmire, because now the media companies can always raise the specter of illegal copying as a reason for declining sales.
So what are we to do? We can legitimately point our fingers now, but no one listens.
Assuming that consumers can reign in their penchant for copyright violation, they have the only tool they'll ever need, which stands ready at their beck and call- control over their spending. It's surprisingly easy to decide NOT to buy something. It requires no gas, no insurance, no loans, or any other obligation - all it requires is a little bit of discipline.
Ideally, when the revenue of the media companies starts to slide enough that there's no way it can be reasonably blamed on illegal copying, they'll be faced with two options: they can continue on their current path, pointing the finger at everyone else (eventually leading to their demise), or they can wise up and develop a new, more appealing business model.
The biggest problem I see in all of this is that most consumers are only willing to entertain two options...lip service, and copyright violation - neither of which has accomplished much of anything. They simply refuse to do the one thing that will make their voice heard.
engineering and design excellence
Replace that phrase with, "an adept understanding of consumer appeal" and I think you'll be spot on. The problems with the screen on the Nano, and the non-replaceable battery in the iPod don't exactly qualify these products as engineering masterpieces, in my opinion.
On the contrary, I'd argue that it's not broken at all - it's just a victim of a two-sided issue, of which both sides are behaving very badly. As long as consumers refuse to allow it to work, it won't work. Only after consumers do their part, can they legitimately point the finger at the media companies.
But what are the chances of hearing something like, "let me get back to you - I'd like to get up to speed with our customer care center." A few hours later, "I regret to inform you, but this particular issue is not within the bounds of your current support agreement. However, we'd be happy to provide immediate asstance for an additional fee of [insert $$$$ here]."
Remember, *nothing* was stolen during the p2p transaction, so she didnt actually *lose* anything, it is only a reduction in the vague concept of 'potential' ( i.e. unprovable ) sales.
When every anyone argues that nothing is stolen, meaning that nothing is physically taken, they always seem to overlook one key factor...the person involved in the acquisition unquestionably now has something of value in their possession. I'd like to see someone justify the notion that by virtue of the fact that Persion A has created something of value, that Person B is automatically is entitled to whatever benefit it may bring.
I'm not a fan of the *AA monopoly at all, but I do think the entitlement mentality that seems to be a large part of the p2p ethos, is rather repugnant.