Look at the current situation with SMTP and it being abused by spammers, and I think you see why IM isn't modeled in the same manner. Sure, there are lots of assholes abusing IM to spam like crazy, but I must say that I don't see anywhere near the amount of bogus IM messages on my Yahoo! IM account that I used to. I wonder what changed?
I'm kind of surprised that this doesn't trigger some kind of investigation into further attempts at continuing their monopoly presence in the marketplace. I'd love to shoot Judge Kollar-Kotelly myself over the bad decision-making that happened with the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. With each and every little trick that gets exposed, the further I pull away from ever considering using their products for anything at all. If it weren't for the work I'm doing in medical transcription, with a VBscript application overlay on top of Word used by my employer, I'd have no need whatsoever for Microsoft's software.
Nice pun, but other than greed, what motivates these companies to keep such a lock-in on their products? We're not talking about products that are brand spanking new and are threatened with extinction if people start using alternatives; these are products that have been around for ages and ages, since before I was born in '62, and will probably stay around for a long time yet to come. They've made their money from them and then some.
Instead of wasting it on lawyers and legal fees, why not spend the money on innovating new games and or new forms of already present games, since obviously someone else is providing what they either have not been able to provide or cannot?
What if he's using botnets to send his spam? Looking at what's bouncing off my mail server at the moment, I note that the volume of rejects is down significantly in the past 2 days, and most of what I was rejecting was from botnetted hosts or mailserver backscatter from numerous joe-jobs on my domain. Funny how that has suddenly ceased following the news about Ralsky.
Note also that I'm the guy who took the photos of his house in 2002.
Yahbut, if you look closely at the entire history of the case, you'll find that there was intent to deceive from the get-go. Darl and his minions all thought up this neato scheme to defraud everyone by claiming their IP was in Linux in hopes that someone would pay them off to shut them up. Unfortunately, IBM fought them tooth and nail through purposefully-prolonged discovery shenanigans. Novell noticed the stink and put in their two cents, contracturally directing their proxy, The SCO Group to stand down from their threats. TSG decided instead to carry on the FUD at the behest of their master, the big software monopoly out in the Northwest, damn the torpedoes. Unfortunately for the masters, they didn't get enough fear, uncertainty and doubt out of the whole picture to ensure a big win with the new bloatware OS of the year to get anyone to buy it. Instead, we've got major PC manufacturers selling preloaded boxes carrying Linux picking up a nice segment of the market now.
Surely someone will be drawn and quartered in there for the lies and coverups necessary to try to make it all believable.
I don't know where you come off with the argument that Google is trying to control the Internet. How is it going to do that by simply cataloging data and allowing people to search it?
As far as Microsoft and it's desktop monopoly, I think given some choice between a buggy, easily exploitable OS, with a bare minimum of any kind of security model, and a truly secure OS that doesn't allow spammers to take control of a PC to become part of a botnet, most folks would probably choose the more secure, non-monopoly OS. The biggest problem is that up until the last few years, most consumers didn't know they had a choice.
Who says consumers don't want FOSS? So far as I can tell, they've not had any real choice in the matter until only in the last 5 years. I also don't see how this relates to MS and its claims of an advertising monopoly by Google. Really, it's just the monopolist striving to remain a monopolist while accusing everyone else of being a monopolist.
Yeah, but the truth is that MS has completely ignored the "software as an internet service" idea and instead has focused on their desktop OS and office suite products, much to their own detriment. So, rather than invest in R&D to get their own offering up and out to the masses, they'd rather use any tool they can to slow Google's adoption including making idiotic claims over Google's perceived advertising monopoly. I look at it as one more bullet to the foot.
Also note that many times getting the legal representation you need is a very costly affair, and lots of plaintiffs in these cases have deep pockets. Even for a collection of "little guys" going after a deep-pocketed foe, it's going to take lots of these: $$$$$$$. The plaintiffs will drag their feet and find ways to make your lawyer and the court work harder, thus running up the court costs and attorney fees. Remember, in court everyone plays to win, and the best of everyone knows what loopholes to exploit to win.
Yes, but how accepting is the development community going to be with it? We see that it's a proprietary product that is not going to be fully interoperable except on Monopoly-approved products. We do have a choice, and that choice may just be shunning it for our own personal and business use unless absolutely necessary. Y'know, hit 'em in the pocketbook.
Microsoft was running circles around itself in an effort to get this monstrosity known as Office XML specification (note the absence of "Open," since it is my belief there is nothing "open" about it) just 4 months ago, loading standards panel with shills for the voting process, and now they're thumbing their noses at another standards body over the same specification?
Way to go, Microsoft! Another shot to the foot. Keep shooting and maybe we can take out a knee next, eh?
Let's not debate the counter argument. Let's concentrate on the facts: The SCO Group had no case and no evidence going in and hoped to get lucky in discovery. They hoped to make enough noise in the marketplace BSA-style, so that everyone would cave in and go along with their little extortion program, the same way everyone has gone along with Microsoft's program of selling every PC along with a flavor of their operating system or suffer the consequences. It was obvious; their hope was that IBM would simply settle out and pay The SCO Group enough $$$ to make them go away. Unfortunately, most everyone involved in any way with Linux knows its history and the history of the Unix operating system and the reasons why The SCO Group's trumped up nonsense couldn't fly, not even in the talons of an African swallow.
So, tell me again, how was the law and conflict resolution supposed to have gone in The SCO Group's favor?
The Nanny State knows better than I do how to take care of me. I need the Nanny State in order to properly function as a responsible adult. Without the Nanny State telling me what to do, how am I to know what is right and what is wrong? It's just like having an extension of my Mommy and Daddy around for the rest of my life! I feel SO COMFORTABLE!
This message brought to you by the letters A and Q and the number 5. "A" stands for absurd.
Over the past few months I've been running a L51 NE priest and a fast-leveling L56 Gnomish mage around on Zangarmarsh realm to join their older sibs in BC, L70 NE hunter and L70 NE druid. This patch comes at a good time, as that mage and priest need to get moving up. I wanna get everyone to 70 so that I can have a choice of which character to drag on guild runs.
Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT? M: Well, I was told outside that... Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings! M: What? Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, malodorous pervert!!! M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!! Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it. Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor. M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry. Q: Not at all. M: Thank You. (Under his breath) Stupid git!!
...demonstrate to me how desperate the content industry is to get the toothpaste back in the tube or Pandora's box to shut. Sorry, guys, but your content is out there on digital media, and given the nature of humans, there's no way you're going to keep it from being spread around. Digital piracy is too easy to accomplish, and rather than adapt to a business model that might incorporate easy distribution and sharing of digital content, they get all offended and feel it's necessary to sue their customers and prosecute middlemen who don't commit the crime, just provide sites on which the crime can be committed. I can think of no other way to alienate the world against you than taking the tack all these content providers have.
There are people that I'd send an.odf to because I know they'd know how to deal. There are other people who insist on using Microsoft products, so I save in.doc when necessary. If it's for personal use,.odf all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the current situation with SMTP and it being abused by spammers, and I think you see why IM isn't modeled in the same manner. Sure, there are lots of assholes abusing IM to spam like crazy, but I must say that I don't see anywhere near the amount of bogus IM messages on my Yahoo! IM account that I used to. I wonder what changed?
I'm kind of surprised that this doesn't trigger some kind of investigation into further attempts at continuing their monopoly presence in the marketplace. I'd love to shoot Judge Kollar-Kotelly myself over the bad decision-making that happened with the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. With each and every little trick that gets exposed, the further I pull away from ever considering using their products for anything at all. If it weren't for the work I'm doing in medical transcription, with a VBscript application overlay on top of Word used by my employer, I'd have no need whatsoever for Microsoft's software.
Nice pun, but other than greed, what motivates these companies to keep such a lock-in on their products? We're not talking about products that are brand spanking new and are threatened with extinction if people start using alternatives; these are products that have been around for ages and ages, since before I was born in '62, and will probably stay around for a long time yet to come. They've made their money from them and then some.
Instead of wasting it on lawyers and legal fees, why not spend the money on innovating new games and or new forms of already present games, since obviously someone else is providing what they either have not been able to provide or cannot?
What if he's using botnets to send his spam? Looking at what's bouncing off my mail server at the moment, I note that the volume of rejects is down significantly in the past 2 days, and most of what I was rejecting was from botnetted hosts or mailserver backscatter from numerous joe-jobs on my domain. Funny how that has suddenly ceased following the news about Ralsky.
Note also that I'm the guy who took the photos of his house in 2002.
Sell tickets for $125 a pop.
Yahbut, if you look closely at the entire history of the case, you'll find that there was intent to deceive from the get-go. Darl and his minions all thought up this neato scheme to defraud everyone by claiming their IP was in Linux in hopes that someone would pay them off to shut them up. Unfortunately, IBM fought them tooth and nail through purposefully-prolonged discovery shenanigans. Novell noticed the stink and put in their two cents, contracturally directing their proxy, The SCO Group to stand down from their threats. TSG decided instead to carry on the FUD at the behest of their master, the big software monopoly out in the Northwest, damn the torpedoes. Unfortunately for the masters, they didn't get enough fear, uncertainty and doubt out of the whole picture to ensure a big win with the new bloatware OS of the year to get anyone to buy it. Instead, we've got major PC manufacturers selling preloaded boxes carrying Linux picking up a nice segment of the market now.
Surely someone will be drawn and quartered in there for the lies and coverups necessary to try to make it all believable.
I don't know where you come off with the argument that Google is trying to control the Internet. How is it going to do that by simply cataloging data and allowing people to search it?
As far as Microsoft and it's desktop monopoly, I think given some choice between a buggy, easily exploitable OS, with a bare minimum of any kind of security model, and a truly secure OS that doesn't allow spammers to take control of a PC to become part of a botnet, most folks would probably choose the more secure, non-monopoly OS. The biggest problem is that up until the last few years, most consumers didn't know they had a choice.
Who says consumers don't want FOSS? So far as I can tell, they've not had any real choice in the matter until only in the last 5 years. I also don't see how this relates to MS and its claims of an advertising monopoly by Google. Really, it's just the monopolist striving to remain a monopolist while accusing everyone else of being a monopolist.
Yeah, but the truth is that MS has completely ignored the "software as an internet service" idea and instead has focused on their desktop OS and office suite products, much to their own detriment. So, rather than invest in R&D to get their own offering up and out to the masses, they'd rather use any tool they can to slow Google's adoption including making idiotic claims over Google's perceived advertising monopoly. I look at it as one more bullet to the foot.
KDE's desktop pager has it since before the beginning.
And none of them even wondering who paid IEEE for that FUD piece.
So, think outside the box, get penalized, that's it, eh?
Fuck off.
Also note that many times getting the legal representation you need is a very costly affair, and lots of plaintiffs in these cases have deep pockets. Even for a collection of "little guys" going after a deep-pocketed foe, it's going to take lots of these: $$$$$$$. The plaintiffs will drag their feet and find ways to make your lawyer and the court work harder, thus running up the court costs and attorney fees. Remember, in court everyone plays to win, and the best of everyone knows what loopholes to exploit to win.
Yes, but how accepting is the development community going to be with it? We see that it's a proprietary product that is not going to be fully interoperable except on Monopoly-approved products. We do have a choice, and that choice may just be shunning it for our own personal and business use unless absolutely necessary. Y'know, hit 'em in the pocketbook.
Microsoft was running circles around itself in an effort to get this monstrosity known as Office XML specification (note the absence of "Open," since it is my belief there is nothing "open" about it) just 4 months ago, loading standards panel with shills for the voting process, and now they're thumbing their noses at another standards body over the same specification?
Way to go, Microsoft! Another shot to the foot. Keep shooting and maybe we can take out a knee next, eh?
Dude... Commas. Use them. Periods end sentences. Commas denote pauses between related yet separate thoughts in a sentence.
Let's not debate the counter argument. Let's concentrate on the facts: The SCO Group had no case and no evidence going in and hoped to get lucky in discovery. They hoped to make enough noise in the marketplace BSA-style, so that everyone would cave in and go along with their little extortion program, the same way everyone has gone along with Microsoft's program of selling every PC along with a flavor of their operating system or suffer the consequences. It was obvious; their hope was that IBM would simply settle out and pay The SCO Group enough $$$ to make them go away. Unfortunately, most everyone involved in any way with Linux knows its history and the history of the Unix operating system and the reasons why The SCO Group's trumped up nonsense couldn't fly, not even in the talons of an African swallow.
So, tell me again, how was the law and conflict resolution supposed to have gone in The SCO Group's favor?
The Nanny State knows better than I do how to take care of me. I need the Nanny State in order to properly function as a responsible adult. Without the Nanny State telling me what to do, how am I to know what is right and what is wrong? It's just like having an extension of my Mommy and Daddy around for the rest of my life! I feel SO COMFORTABLE!
This message brought to you by the letters A and Q and the number 5. "A" stands for absurd.
World of Warcrack. 'Nuff said.
Over the past few months I've been running a L51 NE priest and a fast-leveling L56 Gnomish mage around on Zangarmarsh realm to join their older sibs in BC, L70 NE hunter and L70 NE druid. This patch comes at a good time, as that mage and priest need to get moving up. I wanna get everyone to 70 so that I can have a choice of which character to drag on guild runs.
Woot, more content.
Shamelessly stolen from http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm:
Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M: Well, I was told outside that...
Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M: What?
Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, malodorous pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q: Not at all.
M: Thank You. (Under his breath) Stupid git!!
This was my first thought: How much did MS pay off the OpenDoc Foundation?
...demonstrate to me how desperate the content industry is to get the toothpaste back in the tube or Pandora's box to shut. Sorry, guys, but your content is out there on digital media, and given the nature of humans, there's no way you're going to keep it from being spread around. Digital piracy is too easy to accomplish, and rather than adapt to a business model that might incorporate easy distribution and sharing of digital content, they get all offended and feel it's necessary to sue their customers and prosecute middlemen who don't commit the crime, just provide sites on which the crime can be committed. I can think of no other way to alienate the world against you than taking the tack all these content providers have.
There are people that I'd send an .odf to because I know they'd know how to deal. There are other people who insist on using Microsoft products, so I save in .doc when necessary. If it's for personal use, .odf all the time.