> Do the laws of other states apply to what I do > while I'm in my own? No.
If you commit a crime against someone in another state that causes them damage in that state then, yes, you can be tried in that state. And that's exactly what this case is about.
I'm not a lawyer... I don't even play one on TV. Still, I imagine watching the slashdot readers argue over something like this (from a lawyers perspective) is probably like when I watch a bunch of non-programmers discuss programming design.
>This is going to be something of a landmark case, >quite possibly. In the case of a criminal or >civil complaint about activity on the internet, >which jurisdiction should be used? The accused's >location (I would assume from where the internet >activity was made), the alleged victim's location, >the accused's ISP location (as in this case), or >even federal (inter-state) or international >(inter-country)?
The ISP's location was just a side-bar in this case. It's something that's useful to grab eyeballs to the story. However, the real issue was that the person filing the suit also resides in VA.
There is nothing new here. Nothing internet specific. No earth-shattering precedents are set here. This is another case of media sensationalism polarizing the slashdot readership.
"It really is a loss. Maybe not all of the pirated copies, but a percentage."
That was exactly my point.
"If I didn't protect my apps, I am confident I would get no registrations at all."
Although this may be true for your software, this is easily disproved in the general sense by pointing out shareware programs that seem to earn money with virtually no "protection". I have personally registered dozens of shareware programs. I've registered the programmer's editor I use on every system I use it on and its only protection is only allowing you to print once per session. I literally never print source code so I could have easily done without this.
I paid for it because the editor is exactly what I want in an editor. I want to make sure that the author has money to keep developing it.
As usual, all generalizations are wrong. You can't pigeon-hole all software pirates (arr, matey) into one category.
For most, it is simply that they would like to use the product but not enough to pay the price as listed.
Creating software does take skill and I am a programmer. I make my living writing programs for others as a service. Even carpenters only charge for their time.
Now, don't get me wrong, I agree that anyone should be allowed to charge for software. They should also expect to be paid for it. (I also think that programmers need to be realistic about the kinds of users that are going to pay for their software.) However, I resent the generalities put forth that all bitleggers are spoiled children and future criminals.
While their activity is illegal it is no more illegal than copying your favorite song off the radio.
Is by making companies price their software reasonably enough so that they get a larger number of sales. If the price is too high then more people will seek illegal copies.
Software prices are rather arbitrary and piracy is one of the criteria that goes into setting the price-point.
The real issue is that if you make good software and sell it for a reasonable price then people will buy it.
If you spend half of your time trying to prevent something that you are never going to be able to prevent then your product will suffer and you will lose the customers that are paying.
When you sit and work out how much money your own time is worth, then calculate how much time you spend trying to prevent piracy, then calculate how much extra revenue you generated because of those efforts it usually turns out not to be worth it.
After experience in various forms of copy protection from both the programming side and the user side, I figure the best approach, if you really want to be hard-nosed about it, is to require a license key that's associated with their name. When registering the software they are required to enter their name and license. Any copies they distribute would also have to have their name and license. Real pirates will get around this easily, but honest users will be less likely to casually copy it because it has their name clearly associated with it.
Now, if you do the math, the above approach may not be worth it for most software below $40 because having to generate license keys, etc. isn't free in terms of time and effort.
We aren't saying that it isn't "stealing". What we are saying is that if you call it a "loss" then you are wrong.
If I sneak into a movie that I otherwise wouldn't have seen then: yes, I am stealing but no, I'm am not causing them to lose money. (Unless the theater was sold out and I took the last available seat, etc. which is why a movie is probably a bad example.) They didn't lose $7+ because I otherwise wouldn't have paid it anyway.
I understand what you are saying, but seriously... how many people who pirate your software would have bought it if they didn't have a choice about it? It's probably a strikingly small percentage. Probably wouldn't even pay for the time you spent trying to keep it from happening.
People who buy software will pay for it. People who pirate software in most cases won't pay for it. If your price-point is appropriate then it's usually a non-issue.
There's the other side of the coin too... I've used pirated software before but we are talking about software that's normally priced in the $1000+ range. I could never have afforded to just "take a look" at it for that price. But in exchange for a little inconvenience I _was_ able to try it out... for free... and learn how to use it, etc. Then when I later really needed that kind of software professionally, I purchased it.
To reiterate, there is no loss when someone pirates a piece of software that they never would have bought anyway. And in some rare cases there are even gains.
The losses are incurred when someone pirates software in lieu of purchasing it. I think that this percentage is small.
How about code-geek? I call myself a pro-geek, but that wouldn't apply to everyone nor is it specific enough. Code-geek has the advantage of being a pretty accurate description.
> And the thing i always found rather silly about > the whole 'AI takes over the world' thing is > that even if you cant just unplug the thing, > there's always going to be some relatively easy > way to shut it down. Even if it entails blowing > up the building it's in...
Oh, why do I fall into these traps... well, seriously, if you are going to poke holes in these movies then there are better ways. This particular argument is easier to disbelieve than others.
In Terminator, the computer controlled their weapons and defense systems. Assuming that the designers had never seen a movie about an AI taking over the world, it is reasonable to assume that the computer would be hard to shut down by design. After all, you wouldn't want your enemy just turning it off.
In the Matrix, the computer system was massive. If you had to turn off the _entire_ internet tommorrow, how would you do it? This would have to include any sub-network large enough to hold whatever AI entity that you are trying to kill. And that's not even considering if some of them are in self-contained mobile units.
These stories have weaker elements than this one point. Although, I tend to subscribe to the point of view that any story can have holes poked into it... even the true ones.
It's fun to read all of the old bad reviews of the first three movies too. Only in hindsight will we all know for sure.
Besides, what better way to get someone to read your article than trashing a movie everyone is talking about. It's not like it's going to keep anyone from going and seeing it.
It was sooo bad that I just looked at is a sort of poking fun of all of the other hype we are likely to see. I'm probably (definitely?) wrong, but I find the world is much more interesting when viewed as one big self-deprecating joke.:)
Apparently, Sun is upset because the rules were changed on them. See if you can guess who lobbied for these changes. They have not given up on standards processes in general; They've just given up on MS-ISO.
Does this mean girls will dig us because we only have one finger? Remember, natural selection favors the smart and the attractive. The attractive for obvious reasons. (I mean, given your choice who would you sleep with...) The smart because we can trick 'em. Hmmm... I guess we will evolve into single digit creatures.
Hey, maybe human is just a stop on the way from monkey to thumb.
Everyone employed in a technical capacity without a technical degree please raise your hand. (/me raises hand.) Is it possible that these numbers are affected by the number of people that are able to get these jobs without degrees?
One thing I've noticed in every one of these cases of highschool violence is that the kids used their fingers. This is not to say that the violence couldn't have been perpetrated without fingers but I think it would have been much less likely and much less severe. I think we should immediately remove the fingers of all children under the age of 18 so that we can stop this sort of suffering.
Sarcasm, especially written, is a little insensitive but I think in this case that it's a appropriate.
What the TCM did was for no other reason than that they were a couple of loonies. Reasons and motiviations aside, what separates us from the animals is our self control. Throw enough random factors together and with a large enough sampling you will eventually find someone that is both crazy enough to do something like this and angst enough to try it.
I actually still remember highschool somewhat fondly. After a traumatic elementary/junior high/highschool experience I still look back highschool with a smile. I realized somewhere during my sophomore or junior year how pointless everything was. About the time I caught myself picking on someone else instead of being picked on, I had a sort of epiphany. The pattern was never clearer. More in a moment.
My advice to current highschool prisoners is this: project yourself into the future. Seriously, really imagine that you are an adult with a daily job that occupies most of your time. Your primary concerns are paying your bills, keeping your S.O. happy, and generally doing things you like. Now, if your intelligent and an optimist then you've probably imagined things a little bit better than they are really going to be, but that's ok; They're still going to be pretty good.
Why? Because you're doing something you like to do? No. Because you own your own house now? No. Because you are generally more respected? No. It's because you have a choice on where you are and what you are doing. If you're smart and enlightened then you get to take advantage of these choices. You'll be respected because you put yourself in positions where people like you are respected... or maybe you won't be respected because you chose other things that are more important to you. Choice is the key. If you really looked you could find those same highschool feelings even when you're thirty. Most people learn how to avoid them.
When you've gotten a clear picture of where you think you'll be... look back on yourself today as if reviewing history. Are any of the people around you important to you? Which ones? Why? Are any of these people the ones that are making life hard for you? If so, why are they important to you? It's a sign of other problems and you should seek counseling.
For most of us, we realize that the people that try to ostracize us the most are the ones that matter the least. Learn to ignore these people. If it helps, they are the ones that are going to have the hardest time fitting in later in life. Learn to avoid physical confrontations. This is the hardest one, but the most important; A jab to the jaw is a little hard to ignore. I can't offer any advice on how because it's too specific to your particular situation. It helps not to wear your different-ness on your forehead. There's a big difference between being different because you want to and walking into a classroom and shouting, "I'm different and you are all idiots." Most will be somewhere in between, try and lean towards the less confrontational side.
I'm probably not making any sense any more. Highscool became a much better place after I realized some things. The problem is that I'm not really sure what they were. I do know that I figured out that the highschool social structure is BS and by participating in it at all I'm demeaning myself. I realized adult life would be much better socially but also comes with more responsibility. So I decided to make the best of a bad situation... I took advantage of the less responsibility to genuinely have some fun. After a while I was even able to view the social system with a little bit of humor. (Kept private of course.) If you're really lucky(?) you may even get a glimpse of thing to come, but don't be surprised if it isn't as comforting as you imagine it will be.
I remember a day when our trig teacher picked a test to show to the class as an example. I don't even remember what point she was trying to make, but I do remember that it belonged to one of the more popular guys in the class and we all knew it. He was extremely embarrassed and his demeanor completely changed. At another time I might have taken some joy in seeing him suffer. The thing is, I had noticed him hard at work trying to understand the trig stuff every day that week during lunch. I could only manage to feel bad for him.
Highschool is tough and it isn't likely to get better soon. Just try to get through it alive and things will get better.
-Paul Bah, I'm usually a little more concise but it's monday.
You've touched upon a whole different topic. The school system in the US is degrading. And I'm of the opinion that nothing will stop it although I do have several opinions on the reasons.
First, children today often don't have any sort of support system. Mom and dad both work if they are even both still around. They don't have much time to be a part of their child's life. Some try really hard, even fewer actually succeed. The unfortunate part is that even a little bit of listening can avert a tragedy like this one.
Second, school is a privilege. This may sound good on the surface but what this means is that each successive generation takes this a little more for granted. Even worse, kids that genuinely want to be in school are stuck in classes full of kids that don't want to be there. That statement contains so many problems that need to be fixed that it is a topic for another entire dicussion.
Third, society tends to view money as the answer. When confronted with this opinion I often hold up a dollar bill and ask if it's teaching anyone. When everyone says that it isn't, I then hold up two then three, etc.. The point is that money may be required to implement a solution, but it is not a solution in and of itself. In fact, in more densely populated areas an equal allotment of money is almost insignificant.
Add these three together and what you get is a downward spiral. Each successive generation of kids will be required to be and learn to be more independent. Schools will get more money and not know what to do with it. Each generation of kids will be more likely to take school for granted and not understand the future benefits. Schools will spend the increase in money on making sure that the students can't sneak away. As the reaction becomes more militant the gulf between the few students that really want to be there and the students that don't want to be there will widen.
Because the kids are more independent, they know the basics about how to function in society earlier. This means that they know how to find or purchase guns, explosives, knives, etc.. The internet and violent games only give them the extra experience needed to make the task easier.
The last nail in the coffin that is my downward spiral theory is that all of this adds up to mean that parents need to become even more involved than they already are. Parents that are barely able to tackle the problem now will become overwhelmed.
I fully expect to send my future children to a school where they aren't required to spell correctly until the 6th grade. I only hope that I'm in a position where I can keep my son or daughter out of public schools. I'd hate to have to send them somewhere they are expected to be medianly stupid just because classes are tailored around keeping a disgruntled group a little more interested.
Grrr! Few topics are as frustrating as this one. -Paul (pspeed@progeeks.com)
Do they still put the 6 key on the wrong side? I can't tell because all of their ads now have a person's hand conspicuously over that part of the keyboard.:)
I do use their mice though.
What I would really like is a mouse that is the same shape, but made of marble with ball berrings for the glide (instead of the little plastic strips) and one really big one for tracking. If it was smooth enough I think it would be a really nice feel.
Slashdot Mirror
and the mute woman, Nova.
> Do the laws of other states apply to what I do
> while I'm in my own? No.
If you commit a crime against someone in another state that causes them damage in that state then, yes, you can be tried in that state. And that's exactly what this case is about.
I'm not a lawyer... I don't even play one on TV. Still, I imagine watching the slashdot readers argue over something like this (from a lawyers perspective) is probably like when I watch a bunch of non-programmers discuss programming design.
>This is going to be something of a landmark case,
>quite possibly. In the case of a criminal or
>civil complaint about activity on the internet,
>which jurisdiction should be used? The accused's
>location (I would assume from where the internet
>activity was made), the alleged victim's location,
>the accused's ISP location (as in this case), or
>even federal (inter-state) or international
>(inter-country)?
The ISP's location was just a side-bar in this case. It's something that's useful to grab eyeballs to the story. However, the real issue was that the person filing the suit also resides in VA.
There is nothing new here. Nothing internet specific. No earth-shattering precedents are set here. This is another case of media sensationalism polarizing the slashdot readership.
It's starting to become almost enteraining.
AOL resides in VA.
"It really is a loss. Maybe not all of the pirated copies, but a percentage."
That was exactly my point.
"If I didn't protect my apps, I am confident I would get no registrations at all."
Although this may be true for your software, this is easily disproved in the general sense by pointing out shareware programs that seem to earn money with virtually no "protection". I have personally registered dozens of shareware programs. I've registered the programmer's editor I use on every system I use it on and its only protection is only allowing you to print once per session. I literally never print source code so I could have easily done without this.
I paid for it because the editor is exactly what I want in an editor. I want to make sure that the author has money to keep developing it.
We're still probably talking about less power than it takes to keep the porch light on.
Then humans are evil too. Since, most of us at least, hate somethin. I personally despise cockroaches.
I guess to the cockroach, I am evil.
As usual, all generalizations are wrong. You can't pigeon-hole all software pirates (arr, matey) into one category.
For most, it is simply that they would like to use the product but not enough to pay the price as listed.
Creating software does take skill and I am a programmer. I make my living writing programs for others as a service. Even carpenters only charge for their time.
Now, don't get me wrong, I agree that anyone should be allowed to charge for software. They should also expect to be paid for it. (I also think that programmers need to be realistic about the kinds of users that are going to pay for their software.) However, I resent the generalities put forth that all bitleggers are spoiled children and future criminals.
While their activity is illegal it is no more illegal than copying your favorite song off the radio.
Is by making companies price their software reasonably enough so that they get a larger number of sales. If the price is too high then more people will seek illegal copies.
Software prices are rather arbitrary and piracy is one of the criteria that goes into setting the price-point.
The real issue is that if you make good software and sell it for a reasonable price then people will buy it.
If you spend half of your time trying to prevent something that you are never going to be able to prevent then your product will suffer and you will lose the customers that are paying.
When you sit and work out how much money your own time is worth, then calculate how much time you spend trying to prevent piracy, then calculate how much extra revenue you generated because of those efforts it usually turns out not to be worth it.
After experience in various forms of copy protection from both the programming side and the user side, I figure the best approach, if you really want to be hard-nosed about it, is to require a license key that's associated with their name. When registering the software they are required to enter their name and license. Any copies they distribute would also have to have their name and license. Real pirates will get around this easily, but honest users will be less likely to casually copy it because it has their name clearly associated with it.
Now, if you do the math, the above approach may not be worth it for most software below $40 because having to generate license keys, etc. isn't free in terms of time and effort.
We aren't saying that it isn't "stealing". What we are saying is that if you call it a "loss" then you are wrong.
If I sneak into a movie that I otherwise wouldn't have seen then: yes, I am stealing but no, I'm am not causing them to lose money. (Unless the theater was sold out and I took the last available seat, etc. which is why a movie is probably a bad example.) They didn't lose $7+ because I otherwise wouldn't have paid it anyway.
I understand what you are saying, but seriously... how many people who pirate your software would have bought it if they didn't have a choice about it? It's probably a strikingly small percentage. Probably wouldn't even pay for the time you spent trying to keep it from happening.
People who buy software will pay for it. People who pirate software in most cases won't pay for it. If your price-point is appropriate then it's usually a non-issue.
There's the other side of the coin too... I've used pirated software before but we are talking about software that's normally priced in the $1000+ range. I could never have afforded to just "take a look" at it for that price. But in exchange for a little inconvenience I _was_ able to try it out... for free... and learn how to use it, etc. Then when I later really needed that kind of software professionally, I purchased it.
To reiterate, there is no loss when someone pirates a piece of software that they never would have bought anyway. And in some rare cases there are even gains.
The losses are incurred when someone pirates software in lieu of purchasing it. I think that this percentage is small.
How about code-geek? I call myself a pro-geek, but that wouldn't apply to everyone nor is it specific enough. Code-geek has the advantage of being a pretty accurate description.
Just a thought.
How do you get loans on that side of the pond?
> And the thing i always found rather silly about
> the whole 'AI takes over the world' thing is
> that even if you cant just unplug the thing,
> there's always going to be some relatively easy
> way to shut it down. Even if it entails blowing
> up the building it's in...
Oh, why do I fall into these traps... well, seriously, if you are going to poke holes in these movies then there are better ways. This particular argument is easier to disbelieve than others.
In Terminator, the computer controlled their weapons and defense systems. Assuming that the designers had never seen a movie about an AI taking over the world, it is reasonable to assume that the computer would be hard to shut down by design. After all, you wouldn't want your enemy just turning it off.
In the Matrix, the computer system was massive. If you had to turn off the _entire_ internet tommorrow, how would you do it? This would have to include any sub-network large enough to hold whatever AI entity that you are trying to kill. And that's not even considering if some of them are in self-contained mobile units.
These stories have weaker elements than this one point. Although, I tend to subscribe to the point of view that any story can have holes poked into it... even the true ones.
-Paul
It's fun to read all of the old bad reviews of the first three movies too. Only in hindsight will we all know for sure.
Besides, what better way to get someone to read your article than trashing a movie everyone is talking about. It's not like it's going to keep anyone from going and seeing it.
It was sooo bad that I just looked at is a sort of poking fun of all of the other hype we are likely to see. I'm probably (definitely?) wrong, but I find the world is much more interesting when viewed as one big self-deprecating joke. :)
I guess in an Ensteinian universe, even lines are relative.
For more information, check here:
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1999/1 6/ns-7955.html
Apparently, Sun is upset because the rules were changed on them. See if you can guess who lobbied for these changes. They have not given up on standards processes in general; They've just given up on MS-ISO.
Does this mean girls will dig us because we only have one finger? Remember, natural selection favors the smart and the attractive. The attractive for obvious reasons. (I mean, given your choice who would you sleep with...) The smart because we can trick 'em. Hmmm... I guess we will evolve into single digit creatures.
Hey, maybe human is just a stop on the way from monkey to thumb.
Everyone employed in a technical capacity without a technical degree please raise your hand. (/me raises hand.) Is it possible that these numbers are affected by the number of people that are able to get these jobs without degrees?
Yep, because I'd definitely want police, fire, EMS, teachers and civil servants that were only in it for the money. It is not such a simple issue.
I went to school in a county which (at least at the time) had some of the highest paid teachers. My education didn't seem any better.
I would argue that forced attendance in it's current form is more of a problem than teacher's salaries.
One thing I've noticed in every one of these cases of highschool violence is that the kids used their fingers. This is not to say that the violence couldn't have been perpetrated without fingers but I think it would have been much less likely and much less severe. I think we should immediately remove the fingers of all children under the age of 18 so that we can stop this sort of suffering.
Sarcasm, especially written, is a little insensitive but I think in this case that it's a appropriate.
What the TCM did was for no other reason than that they were a couple of loonies. Reasons and motiviations aside, what separates us from the animals is our self control. Throw enough random factors together and with a large enough sampling you will eventually find someone that is both crazy enough to do something like this and angst enough to try it.
I actually still remember highschool somewhat fondly. After a traumatic elementary/junior high/highschool experience I still look back highschool with a smile. I realized somewhere during my sophomore or junior year how pointless everything was. About the time I caught myself picking on someone else instead of being picked on, I had a sort of epiphany. The pattern was never clearer. More in a moment.
My advice to current highschool prisoners is this: project yourself into the future. Seriously, really imagine that you are an adult with a daily job that occupies most of your time. Your primary concerns are paying your bills, keeping your S.O. happy, and generally doing things you like. Now, if your intelligent and an optimist then you've probably imagined things a little bit better than they are really going to be, but that's ok; They're still going to be pretty good.
Why? Because you're doing something you like to do? No. Because you own your own house now? No. Because you are generally more respected? No. It's because you have a choice on where you are and what you are doing. If you're smart and enlightened then you get to take advantage of these choices. You'll be respected because you put yourself in positions where people like you are respected... or maybe you won't be respected because you chose other things that are more important to you. Choice is the key. If you really looked you could find those same highschool feelings even when you're thirty. Most people learn how to avoid them.
When you've gotten a clear picture of where you think you'll be... look back on yourself today as if reviewing history. Are any of the people around you important to you? Which ones? Why? Are any of these people the ones that are making life hard for you? If so, why are they important to you? It's a sign of other problems and you should seek counseling.
For most of us, we realize that the people that try to ostracize us the most are the ones that matter the least. Learn to ignore these people. If it helps, they are the ones that are going to have the hardest time fitting in later in life.
Learn to avoid physical confrontations. This is the hardest one, but the most important; A jab to the jaw is a little hard to ignore. I can't offer any advice on how because it's too specific to your particular situation. It helps not to wear your different-ness on your forehead. There's a big difference between being different because you want to and walking into a classroom and shouting, "I'm different and you are all idiots." Most will be somewhere in between, try and lean towards the less confrontational side.
I'm probably not making any sense any more. Highscool became a much better place after I realized some things. The problem is that I'm not really sure what they were. I do know that I figured out that the highschool social structure is BS and by participating in it at all I'm demeaning myself. I realized adult life would be much better socially but also comes with more responsibility. So I decided to make the best of a bad situation... I took advantage of the less responsibility to genuinely have some fun. After a while I was even able to view the social system with a little bit of humor. (Kept private of course.) If you're really lucky(?) you may even get a glimpse of thing to come, but don't be surprised if it isn't as comforting as you imagine it will be.
I remember a day when our trig teacher picked a test to show to the class as an example. I don't even remember what point she was trying to make, but I do remember that it belonged to one of the more popular guys in the class and we all knew it. He was extremely embarrassed and his demeanor completely changed. At another time I might have taken some joy in seeing him suffer. The thing is, I had noticed him hard at work trying to understand the trig stuff every day that week during lunch. I could only manage to feel bad for him.
Highschool is tough and it isn't likely to get better soon. Just try to get through it alive and things will get better.
-Paul
Bah, I'm usually a little more concise but it's monday.
You've touched upon a whole different topic. The school system in the US is degrading. And I'm of the opinion that nothing will stop it although I do have several opinions on the reasons.
First, children today often don't have any sort of support system. Mom and dad both work if they are even both still around. They don't have much time to be a part of their child's life. Some try really hard, even fewer actually succeed. The unfortunate part is that even a little bit of listening can avert a tragedy like this one.
Second, school is a privilege. This may sound good on the surface but what this means is that each successive generation takes this a little more for granted. Even worse, kids that genuinely want to be in school are stuck in classes full of kids that don't want to be there. That statement contains so many problems that need to be fixed that it is a topic for another entire dicussion.
Third, society tends to view money as the answer. When confronted with this opinion I often hold up a dollar bill and ask if it's teaching anyone. When everyone says that it isn't, I then hold up two then three, etc.. The point is that money may be required to implement a solution, but it is not a solution in and of itself. In fact, in more densely populated areas an equal allotment of money is almost insignificant.
Add these three together and what you get is a downward spiral. Each successive generation of kids will be required to be and learn to be more independent. Schools will get more money and not know what to do with it. Each generation of kids will be more likely to take school for granted and not understand the future benefits. Schools will spend the increase in money on making sure that the students can't sneak away. As the reaction becomes more militant the gulf between the few students that really want to be there and the students that don't want to be there will widen.
Because the kids are more independent, they know the basics about how to function in society earlier. This means that they know how to find or purchase guns, explosives, knives, etc.. The internet and violent games only give them the extra experience needed to make the task easier.
The last nail in the coffin that is my downward spiral theory is that all of this adds up to mean that parents need to become even more involved than they already are. Parents that are barely able to tackle the problem now will become overwhelmed.
I fully expect to send my future children to a school where they aren't required to spell correctly until the 6th grade. I only hope that I'm in a position where I can keep my son or daughter out of public schools. I'd hate to have to send them somewhere they are expected to be medianly stupid just because classes are tailored around keeping a disgruntled group a little more interested.
Grrr! Few topics are as frustrating as this one.
-Paul (pspeed@progeeks.com)
Do they still put the 6 key on the wrong side? I can't tell because all of their ads now have a person's hand conspicuously over that part of the keyboard. :)
I do use their mice though.
What I would really like is a mouse that is the same shape, but made of marble with ball berrings for the glide (instead of the little plastic strips) and one really big one for tracking. If it was smooth enough I think it would be a really nice feel.