They are giving you a service for basically free that has enormous costs for them. The expect that page views are just that, people actually viewing the complete page in the way it was presented.
Now, I also believe that companies should provide SOAP interfaces to their sites so that people can properly integrate the information available. However, they should also charge for this service.
Maybe if they don't have any other way to get the information screen-scraping is acceptable. But it's much better to have a SOAP interface you can use. Oh, and if they do have a SOAP interface, and you screen-scrap to get the same information without paying for it, you are stealing from them.
Instead of using the corprate Windows image, I simply put Gentoo on the box and they've yet to find out. This way, I ensure that all ports are secure (via %netstat) and retain my privacy.
Provided you are not a troll, hasn't anyone walked over yet to see why they are having trouble "supporting" your box? Or don't they care?
Really now. Microsoft might have started out with selling cheap consumer desktops, but those margins are starting to get mighty thin. I think that Microsoft wants to see some of those larger margin server deals.
IOW, they want to start competing for the market of those who *do* care about volume managers, ssh, etc.
I'm guessing that you are trying to claim that if Windows and Linux had been switched in your example, everything would have worked automatically. So let's try stepping through it.
I've got a Linux workstation that that originally ran Windows 98. I need to run TurboTax, and fortunately, I still have Windows 98 on the primary slave. No problem, I just reboot.
Well, I'm now stuck, how to I progress from here? Windows 98 isn't booting from the primary slave. I can't get it to boot using the Windows 98 CD, or even a floppy disk.
We haven't even talked about the new hardware, much of it needs drivers that need to be downloaded as I don't buy retail box hardware.
Now explain to me how an "modern average" user is supposed to figure this all out? Windows needs SOMETHING to configure itself!
Win95 ran just fine on that P/75. Why won't Linux with GUI?
It's because you are not comparing apples to apples. KDE is resource intensive as XP. And XP wouldn't run on that P/75. If you want to run a GUI on a P/755, try something more suited to it like fvwm or icewm.
If they can't produce to web browser that will cause people to buy it over Safari, then they should just not develop Opera for the Mac. There's nothing wrong with that.
And before anyone says anything, this does not mean that Apple has an illegal monopoly. There is nothing wrong with not propping up third-party developers.
The DMCA and copy restricted material draws a very fine line but it is still LEGAL to more your media from one form to another. What if you already OWN the media in another form and simply d/l it in a different form like divx or mp3.
This particular law doesn't have anything to do with you moving your music from one place to another, but giving access to a completely different person. So cool it. Sharing commercial products with others is illegal, and it's vfery easy to assertain guilt.
You've got a file sharing program running with shared commerial files on it? You are guilty, end of story.
We were down for more than 8 hours and no customer could call in to check on their server problem tickets, hospitals needed service and we couldnt get technicians out there...our servers were swamped
Please tell me that your are serious and that the problems IBM experienced were simply do to lack of bandwidth available, and not that IBM was using MS SQL Server. Please, please, please...
By inlcuding other interpreters into Windows and making a good advertisement of it, Microsoft can prove that JVM is not the only choice developers have for cross-platform development.
I don't think cross-platform compatibility is a high priority for Microsoft.
I don't like Microsoft's monopoly, although it's the only example of a bad market behaviour - look what Apple is doing.
If Microsoft is the only example of bad market behavior, and this market behaviour is foung to violate antitrust law, then shouldn't Microsoft have to pay some sort of retribution for that?
You may have other preferences then Java, but that doesn't make Java a bad thing.
Linux doesn't even use that code. It uses the ideas. And many many other operating systems (probably all) use the same ideas. They were given the right to do so.
None of the articles I've seen about this story claim that this was the issue. The only people claiming this was the issue is people on this board trying to tear down SCO.
The only issues that I've seen that are involved are licensing SCO's binary libraries, and signing contracts to see their source code. These have nothing to do with the "ideas" that you mentioned.
They have a product, they sell if, their customers pay them for it.
And if their "customers" don't pay for it? I say that they should be able to sue. You say that if something doesn't pay for you product, but just steals it, stinks to be you, I guess.
If a company paid SCO to use see their source code and then used it in a way that was not agree on, SCO has the right to sue. If a company swipes SCO's libraries to run SCO binaries without paying, then SCO has a right to sue.
All this talk about bad patents, bullying, and dumb IP is just absurb and is just meant to hurt a commendable company.
Can I freely take your car for a spin if I make sure I dn't sign a contract with you? I doubt it. Is the only difference that you car is tangible?
To pull this back on topic... what IP exactly are they trying to license?
According to the reports I've seen, SCO is going to be enforcing licenses for copies of their libraries that allow SCO Binaries to run on other Unixes. These libraries have previously been illegally copied and distributed, and that is wrong, no matter who it is that is going it.
I'm fine with SCO licensing their libraries. Apparently others on this board are fine with tearing down companies and creating strawmen to further hurt fine technology companies.
Does anyone else see this as the end of SCO (Caldera) like I do? I certainly will never use anything from them ever again.
Have you ever considered legally licensing SCO's IP if you are going to use it? That's what the issue is all about.
Why am I not hearing outrage from the crowds because Microsoft still dares license their software? Shouldn't I be able to copy Windows at will? Of course not.
So let's adhere to SCO's licensing agreements and everything will be fine. Otherwise if you steal from SCO, I don't feel any more sorry for you then if you have stole from Microsoft.
Apple had better take extraordinary effort to make their new browser IE compatible.
IE compatibility isn't important. You may not realize this, but the W3C defines web compatibility. As long as Apple implements for the W3C, it doesn't matter who uses their browser.
While many web developers will be willing to test their pages on IE/Mozilla/Opera how many are going to be willing to get a Mac to test this new browser?
More to the point, why would anyone need to? I do web development. I test against the W3C implementation. I don't care what browser you use. It doesn't matter. All you need is a W3C compliant browser.
You don't know what borwser I use, and you shouldn't care. I may have written my own. But even if I have, you don't have to get a copy of it to make sure that it works. You just have to make sure that you test against the W3C implementation.
Oh yeah, and anyone who tests against a specific browser and not an standard is a loser;)
Tauzin is not wanting to block the do-not-call list. He wants to make sure that it is done the first time correctly. Taking 6 months now to make sure that it starts out right will be a ton better then needing years later to correct issues with the call list.
Tauzin is also concerned about the overlapping jurisdiction of the FTC and FCC. If the jurisdictional issues aren't dealt with before hand we might end up with 2 do-not-call lists or a prohibitive amount of regulation for companies to deal with.
If this do-not-call list is going to work, we must stop and make sure that this is being implemented in the most effective manner.
I can't believe they would not adopt Chimera, especially with David Hyatt now working at Apple.
Presumably they would use khtml because it was already ported to QT. QT is well supported while gtk is not very well supported yet. That means that Mozilla would take much more work to integrate.
Its truly cross platform, has a huge amount of momentum behind it, and AOL would essentially be doing R&D for free for Apple.
OS X really isn't cross-platform. It's not like Safari is ever going to run on anything else other then OS X. Also, AOL isn't providing any more R&D then Apple is receiving with khtml. Apple has to do the work to integrate whatever they chose with OS X anyways.
Well, it depends on your application. I've found that most people just choose to use Windows without any real evaluation to actual needs or TCO.
Your application might be best implemented with Java, or Web Services, or as a thin client environment running on Solaris.
The most amazing thing I've found is that in a corporate environment the fat client model rarely scales.
-Brent
Isn't deleting logs an obstruction of justice?
on
Cryptome Log Subpoenaed
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Shouldn't we as true Americans be ready to assist in every way we can to prevent future 9/11's? If my providing logs could even prevent one little terrorist attack I would do it in a minute.
Are we that bent on self-destruction that we would rather open ourselves to the possiblity of a terrorist attack, rather then doing the simple things like providing logs to makee this world a safr place to live?
Slashdot Mirror
They are giving you a service for basically free that has enormous costs for them. The expect that page views are just that, people actually viewing the complete page in the way it was presented.
Now, I also believe that companies should provide SOAP interfaces to their sites so that people can properly integrate the information available. However, they should also charge for this service.
Maybe if they don't have any other way to get the information screen-scraping is acceptable. But it's much better to have a SOAP interface you can use. Oh, and if they do have a SOAP interface, and you screen-scrap to get the same information without paying for it, you are stealing from them.
-Brent
Provided you are not a troll, hasn't anyone walked over yet to see why they are having trouble "supporting" your box? Or don't they care?
-BrentMaybe they *do* use the $20 to continue to invest in their free/OpenSource software products. They do have quite a few of those, you know.
-BrentReally now. Microsoft might have started out with selling cheap consumer desktops, but those margins are starting to get mighty thin. I think that Microsoft wants to see some of those larger margin server deals.
IOW, they want to start competing for the market of those who *do* care about volume managers, ssh, etc.
-BrentI didn't really read the EULA for the Solaris x86 downloaded but I'm pretty sure that redistribution is prohibited.
-BrentHave you given a non-geek an empty box and a copy of XP and Lycoris to try to install? The results might surprise you.
-BrentI'm guessing that you are trying to claim that if Windows and Linux had been switched in your example, everything would have worked automatically. So let's try stepping through it.
I've got a Linux workstation that that originally ran Windows 98. I need to run TurboTax, and fortunately, I still have Windows 98 on the primary slave. No problem, I just reboot.
Well, I'm now stuck, how to I progress from here? Windows 98 isn't booting from the primary slave. I can't get it to boot using the Windows 98 CD, or even a floppy disk.
We haven't even talked about the new hardware, much of it needs drivers that need to be downloaded as I don't buy retail box hardware.
Now explain to me how an "modern average" user is supposed to figure this all out? Windows needs SOMETHING to configure itself!
-BrentIt's because you are not comparing apples to apples. KDE is resource intensive as XP. And XP wouldn't run on that P/75. If you want to run a GUI on a P/755, try something more suited to it like fvwm or icewm.
-BrentIf they can't produce to web browser that will cause people to buy it over Safari, then they should just not develop Opera for the Mac. There's nothing wrong with that.
And before anyone says anything, this does not mean that Apple has an illegal monopoly. There is nothing wrong with not propping up third-party developers.
-Brent
This particular law doesn't have anything to do with you moving your music from one place to another, but giving access to a completely different person. So cool it. Sharing commercial products with others is illegal, and it's vfery easy to assertain guilt.
You've got a file sharing program running with shared commerial files on it? You are guilty, end of story.
-BrentPlease tell me that your are serious and that the problems IBM experienced were simply do to lack of bandwidth available, and not that IBM was using MS SQL Server. Please, please, please...
-BrentI don't think cross-platform compatibility is a high priority for Microsoft.
I don't like Microsoft's monopoly, although it's the only example of a bad market behaviour - look what Apple is doing.If Microsoft is the only example of bad market behavior, and this market behaviour is foung to violate antitrust law, then shouldn't Microsoft have to pay some sort of retribution for that?
You may have other preferences then Java, but that doesn't make Java a bad thing.
-BrentNone of the articles I've seen about this story claim that this was the issue. The only people claiming this was the issue is people on this board trying to tear down SCO.
The only issues that I've seen that are involved are licensing SCO's binary libraries, and signing contracts to see their source code. These have nothing to do with the "ideas" that you mentioned.
-BrentAnd if their "customers" don't pay for it? I say that they should be able to sue. You say that if something doesn't pay for you product, but just steals it, stinks to be you, I guess.
If a company paid SCO to use see their source code and then used it in a way that was not agree on, SCO has the right to sue. If a company swipes SCO's libraries to run SCO binaries without paying, then SCO has a right to sue.
All this talk about bad patents, bullying, and dumb IP is just absurb and is just meant to hurt a commendable company.
Can I freely take your car for a spin if I make sure I dn't sign a contract with you? I doubt it. Is the only difference that you car is tangible?
-BrentAccording to the reports I've seen, SCO is going to be enforcing licenses for copies of their libraries that allow SCO Binaries to run on other Unixes. These libraries have previously been illegally copied and distributed, and that is wrong, no matter who it is that is going it.
I'm fine with SCO licensing their libraries. Apparently others on this board are fine with tearing down companies and creating strawmen to further hurt fine technology companies.
-BrentHave you ever considered legally licensing SCO's IP if you are going to use it? That's what the issue is all about.
Why am I not hearing outrage from the crowds because Microsoft still dares license their software? Shouldn't I be able to copy Windows at will? Of course not.
So let's adhere to SCO's licensing agreements and everything will be fine. Otherwise if you steal from SCO, I don't feel any more sorry for you then if you have stole from Microsoft.
-BrentI don't think that choosing specific licensing terms violates anti-trust laws.
-BrentIE compatibility isn't important. You may not realize this, but the W3C defines web compatibility. As long as Apple implements for the W3C, it doesn't matter who uses their browser.
While many web developers will be willing to test their pages on IE/Mozilla/Opera how many are going to be willing to get a Mac to test this new browser?More to the point, why would anyone need to? I do web development. I test against the W3C implementation. I don't care what browser you use. It doesn't matter. All you need is a W3C compliant browser.
You don't know what borwser I use, and you shouldn't care. I may have written my own. But even if I have, you don't have to get a copy of it to make sure that it works. You just have to make sure that you test against the W3C implementation.
Oh yeah, and anyone who tests against a specific browser and not an standard is a loser ;)
-BrentPerhaps it involved a certain trial involving a certain freedom.
-BrentSome Claims are Obvious
Tauzin is not wanting to block the do-not-call list. He wants to make sure that it is done the first time correctly. Taking 6 months now to make sure that it starts out right will be a ton better then needing years later to correct issues with the call list.
Tauzin is also concerned about the overlapping jurisdiction of the FTC and FCC. If the jurisdictional issues aren't dealt with before hand we might end up with 2 do-not-call lists or a prohibitive amount of regulation for companies to deal with.
If this do-not-call list is going to work, we must stop and make sure that this is being implemented in the most effective manner.
-Brent
Presumably they would use khtml because it was already ported to QT. QT is well supported while gtk is not very well supported yet. That means that Mozilla would take much more work to integrate.
Its truly cross platform, has a huge amount of momentum behind it, and AOL would essentially be doing R&D for free for Apple.OS X really isn't cross-platform. It's not like Safari is ever going to run on anything else other then OS X. Also, AOL isn't providing any more R&D then Apple is receiving with khtml. Apple has to do the work to integrate whatever they chose with OS X anyways.
-BrentThey are slow???
-Brent
Well, it depends on your application. I've found that most people just choose to use Windows without any real evaluation to actual needs or TCO.
Your application might be best implemented with Java, or Web Services, or as a thin client environment running on Solaris.
The most amazing thing I've found is that in a corporate environment the fat client model rarely scales.
-BrentShouldn't we as true Americans be ready to assist in every way we can to prevent future 9/11's? If my providing logs could even prevent one little terrorist attack I would do it in a minute.
Are we that bent on self-destruction that we would rather open ourselves to the possiblity of a terrorist attack, rather then doing the simple things like providing logs to makee this world a safr place to live?
-Brent