But, some of the things make Ubuntu Ubuntu and Fedora Fedora. For example, having no root account by default makes Ubuntu different, it also makes it more secure then say Fedora which you use su to get to the root account. That will make scripting different because if it is Ubuntu you put sudo if it is Fedora you use su. Ubuntu is more likely to add more proprietary drivers for things to make them "just work", Fedora on the other hand prefers to use 100% free software and may make things a bit more complex to set up some things. Then there are other differences, Red Hat developed Anaconda therefore it is more likely to use it then Ubiquity, Ubuntu's installer. Red Hat developed RPM, Ubuntu is from Debian which developed Deb, therefore there will be differences. This isn't a bad thing though, RPM lately has had to become faster and better to compete with Deb and both Anaconda and Ubiquity are trying to make the distro as easy to install as possible.
The problem is though, what I find is easy might not be what you find is easy. What a lifetime Mac user finds is easy isn't what a lifetime Windows user thinks is easy. There are interfaces that are "easy" already out there, the problem is, to many, easy is simply little customization available. A common interface though, isn't what every computer needs though. For my aging Pentium III, JWM might be great for it, for someone with a quad core CPU and a fast graphics card Compiz-Fusion might be great for it. My aging Dell with a Pentium 4-era Celeron is great when using Xubuntu, however regular Ubuntu or Kubuntu is too slow for it. Different situations need different solutions. Different people need different solutions. Myself I find that Ubuntu is by far the easiest to give to a new computer user, for the long-term Windows user though, Kubuntu seems to be better. The thing that makes Linux great is there is no one thing that a Linux distro is, and thats part of the reason it is growing.
No, I don't think so really. The problem is a Mac is considered to be a Mac, it has its own interface that people are willing to use because it is a Mac, not a PC but a Mac. When someone installs Linux, they expect it to be like Windows because it is on a machine that had Windows on it, when it isn't the cheap copy of Windows they were looking for they don't bother to learn it and dismiss Linux as having a horrible UI because they won't learn it. The concept of an operating system that runs on most computers has been lost and is replaced with Windows running on X86 based computers (PCs) and OS X running on Macs, so often it seems that in order to explain what Linux really is you have to compare it to Windows, from there people get the wrong idea that the interface is just like Windows and see it as a free copy, when they see GNOME/KDE/XFCE they are confused as it isn't Windows.
For the most part GPL software is available without BitTorrent.
That is correct, however BitTorrent is a much faster way to download it, when it is a new release of something popular such as Ubuntu, HTTP downloads are around 30KB/Second while torrents are around 200Kb/Second, therefore, there is little justification to not use BitTorrent when downloading large files, and when you figure that BitTorrent doesn't stress the servers of the project, it is a better choice in the long run too.
So yes you are right, but that's the theory. Let's look at the facts. There is more illegal software than legal software. And I am sure it is clogging the networks of Comcast and other network providers.
There is illegal software via HTTP and FTP too, in fact one might say that there is just as much via HTTP as via P2P. As for clogging the networks, the ISPs should have gotten more bandwidth before they offered higher speed Internet or at least have it in their advertising that they throttle P2P and certainly contracts. It would be like if I set up a huge pile of sand in my backyard, and I had people pay $40 per month to get as much sand as they wanted and it said so in the contract and through advertising. Of course some people only needed a bit of sand and took some home in buckets, others would take bigger ones. However, fearing that my sand would run out I poked holes in all of the larger buckets making them carry much less. People would have a right to be mad at me for promising unlimited sand and then limiting it. Same thing with the ISPs
Don't like, switch!
I don't know where you live, but here in the US there are about 3 main ISPs and most if not all have torrent throttling. Some of the more rural areas only have one way of getting high-speed internet and if you don't like that ISP it is either that or dial-up. And as for creating your own company, the grants the government/cities gave out to help get internet to the world, chances are won't be given again making it impossible to
The same thing is happening with Linux. If you want to download the latest release of Ubuntu in a few days to a few weeks after it has been released using HTTP, you will find that the connection's max speed is around 30KB/Second, the torrent however hits around 200Kb/Second. If you want the release and don't want to mess with time-out errors, torrenting it is the only way you can really get it.
So now I am not allowed to use my rights to download GPL'd software or public domain software now? Implying that P2P is all illegal copying is incorrect and makes you look misinformed. P2P can contain free-to-copy files along with not-free-to-copy files as can HTTP/FTP/Etc. So can CDs, Hard disks, Floppy Disks, Cassette Tapes, Flash drives, the list goes on and on. Just because some people use knives to kill people shouldn't mean that we have to now use forks to cut our meat.
No, it is an issue of me thinking that there is no moral reason to say that copyright infringement is stealing or even wrong. Can I agree that it is illegal, yes, but do you think that the quiz will be based on emotion or facts? My guess is emotion, they won't ask questions of "Is copyright infringement illegal" but "How much money has the film industry lost due to piracy" or "Is copyright infringement stealing". Anyone in favor of copyright reform would either have to A) lie or B) be indoctrinated with it. It manages to stop any anti-copyright or copyright reform movement as you would have to agree to believing in copyright in order to use a significant portion of the Internet.
So now, with that logic though, where does it stop? If I decide to buy a pocketknife to go camping with should I have to pass a quiz about all the dangers I can do by using a pocketknife? Should I have to take a quiz over murder/assault/who knows what else to be able to buy one? I don't think so. The smartest thing though for the university to do, is hire a private ISP to take over all the non LAN-related stuff they have that way the students get the real Internet and the university doesn't have to worry about what files the students are downloading, or we can throw in a a dash of lets-not-have-a-monopoly and let there be competition in college dorms for ISPs!
Or you know, just go off-campus for a bit, fire up your torrents on some guy's linksys network and download them. Granted with gas as high as it is, it might be cheaper to just buy the CDs, but if the CDs have DRM or rootkits on them.....
So, whenever I click on Ubuntu_8.04.Torrent a box will pop up asking me for a capcha? I don't see how this will work unless either A) The school uses a server on the local network preventing you from downloading anything (bad idea, leaves the network open to crackers and it can be easily circumnavigated) or B) The school owns all the torrent sites preventing you from downloading them without a capcha.
Exactly, these questions that will surely be asked on the test will try to make it seem like copyright infringement is stealing as much as 2+2=4 rather then asking a moral question that can be taken either way. I am surprised to see that whenever a professor expresses views that might be objectionable the media attacks them, but with "piracy" they seem to make it seem like it is stealing when it clearly is not.
If the question is why is stealing bad, the answer would be that the person being stolen from doesn't have what got stolen. For example if someone stole your car, the bad part wouldn't be that someone has a new car but rather you don't have a car. With piracy though its the opposite, for downloading a song no one has any less songs as they can be copied and you have a new song, the RIAA seem to punish the fact you have a new song rather then the infinite supply of songs is running out. This seems to beg the question, if we can ever create a replicator that will make a perfect copy of things without doing any harm to the original will making a new item be called stealing? Because, has history is showing us, in a way that already has happened just with music and not physical goods.
How pointless is this? First off, people need to know that P2P != Illegal. Seriously, because I can download ROMs and other copyrighted work easily over HTTP should that be banned too? I can download others via FTP. I can download still others over various chat programs. The fact that P2P can allow you to easily download files quicker with less cost then with HTTP suddenly makes this technology "evil"? And before anyone says "Oh but most people download illegal things via P2P!!!", how many more illegal things do people download via HTTP? Im guessing a lot more, with "pirated" YouTube music videos being posted all the time (yet thankfully the RIAA isn't suing the users of YouTube... yet) And also, has anyone tried to download Linux ISOs of a popular distro a day to a few weeks after release via HTTP? You are lucky to get 30 KB/Second whereas with P2P you can top 200 KB/Second easily.
For the casual to hardcore gamer though, console gaming usually is better. With a console you usually have around 5-8 years of which the platform will have new games released for it unless that platform is a total failure (Such as the Virtual Boy). With a PC you have to keep upgrading. A game released 3 years from now won't run as well as a game made today on today's hardware, however with a console usually a game released at the end of life will run just as well or even better then a game made on the console's launch date. Also, with PC gaming you have the problem of Windows (unless you feel like hacking WINE to make the newest games work, there isn't many native Linux games, though gaming is improving on Linux) which, Vista uses up much, much, much, much, much more resources then XP to run at the same level. So your XP system which ran 1 Gig of RAM, decent video card, high-end P4 could run many games decently, an "upgrade" to Vista would most likely require an extra 2 gigs of RAM, twice the CPU power and most likely a new video card to get the exact same level of performance. Console gaming usually doesn't have that problem, though some hardware gets redesigned (Game Boy to Game Boy Pocket, the fat PS1 to the slim PS1, PSP to PSP Slim and Lite, GBA to GBA SP) games will run at the same level on both of them. PC gaming is great if you have $1000 to waste on upgrades and a new computer, console gaming is great if you have say $500 to buy a bunch of games and a system. For most people console gaming wins.
No, it only means that there are other companies that don't admit to throttling P2P. Most uninformed people would switch to one that doesn't openly admit it thinking that because they don't admit it they don't throttle. That seems to be the trend in the general public.
Isn't that what all monopolies want us to do? All MS wants us to do is keep paying for needless Windows licences while they don't improve it much, pay for Office because MS can't be bothered to include a decent word processor, pay for Windows OneCare because they can't fix their swiss-cheese OS, pay for DRM-ed music because they belive that all anyone does with DRM-free music is share it (and of course we all know that transfering media from your computer to a CD-ROM/MP3 player/another computer is morally wrong!11!11!) All the oil companies want us to do is pay for the $4/gallon of gas while beliving all the "oil is scarce" nonsense. All the government wants us to do is keep being patriotic so they can go on witch hunts for "terrorists" on American citizens. To keep us in paranoia about how obviously they need to wiretap more American phones because they might be a terrorist. To keep help "keep crime down" by restricting our second amendment right to bear arms. All the record companies want us to do is keep buying a copy of a song for every device we own. To believe in all this "piracy" nonsense and how if you transfer your legally bought CD to a computer/MP3 player/another CD/Home server is now illegal. To believe that fair use is illegal. To make us believe that all "pirates" bring down the economy/cause global warming/are responsible for drownings/deface Internet sites or other outrageous things.
The fact is, monopolies are much like oppressive governments, they try to make the public not think. But to just exist and "consume" whatever crap they throw at us.
But that is what the contract states (usually) or at least the advertising either directly says it or implies it. It would be equivalent as some company offering a price for an item and then that item never being available for purchase at the stated price. Someone should really sue these ISPs. The bad part though is, if you are like most people there are only 2-3 ISPs in your town to chose from, in worst cases there is only one ISP that offers high-speed Internet.
So your big complaint is that a 7 year old OS (SP2 was released in 2004) doesn't install on a device that was released 3 years after it was? And of course, that hardware wasn't widely available until probably a year or two later.
No the big complaint would be if Windows was so easy to install, it would have updated versions to work with newer hardware (perhaps as an ISO if you have a Windows serial key?). The fact is, if MS was really concerned with user-friendlyness they would make a install CD that could run as a Live CD (Yggdrasil was a Live CD that was out before 1995) that could allow for the CD to be removed and drivers to be installed (Puppy Linux will let me remove the CD when it is in live-CD mode on a ~1998 Pentium III computer with around 128 MB of RAM). That would have made the most sense. But wait, this is MS we are talking about, an OS so user-unfriendly that most have to hire some guy to do tasks which would be easy in most modern distros of Linux.
Most ISPs won't do that. Why? Because they want to give you an illusion that they are really an Internet service provider to begin with. The moment they really admit in ads that they were giving you less Internet then the real Internet (by throttling P2P connections) will be the moment that people will become aware of this and may switch companies to one that doesn't openly admit to blocking P2P.
So, what are you implying? That those who pay for a high-speed connection to the Internet shouldn't have rights to the high-speed part of it? So you are saying because I pay $XX per month to get unlimited access to the Internet at a speed of say ~1.5 MB/Second I have no right to demand use of that unlimited connection? I don't get what you are implying here, it seems like you are saying that what you pay for you have no right to use.
Sysadmins though will never be outsourced. Why? Because without them who could set up the new computers? Who would tell the employees that if you take of this thing called "Caps Lock" your password works?
All joking aside, sysadmins will probably still be in demand while other jobs can be shipped off to India because of the sheer necessity for troubleshooting and managing boxes locally (there is no way some guy from India can SSH into your computer if your internet connection is down)
While code monkeys and similar will be outsourced to whichever place has the cheapest labor, the sysadmin (and computer repair jobs) are here to stay.
However what happens if that "randomness" doesn't become all that random? First there is a possibility of an attacker using the same algorithm and managing to have a list of "garbage data" to ignore. Second there is a possibility of using a similar method to determine info about the system (for example, MS's version of it would probably be totally different then the Linux/*NIX version) and then move on to another attack.
Now, I admit I don't know that much about cryptography and this probably couldn't happen with more advanced methods but for simple ones this could make it be useless.
Tell me, when has MS ever "opened up" technology except to get people hooked and then change it? Or to destroy a competitor? I can name you many ways in which they did, IE for Unix/Mac which they abandoned as soon as Netscape was dead. On a similar note, ActiveX which in some ways forces people to use Windows and IE because the technology was (incorrectly) added into bank websites and similar. MS never, ever adheres to standards except for a way of making money and as soon as they have enough marketshare they extend and extinguish it.
You should know that most of the companies don't know a thing about software or hardware. They just plug in the drive and hit a button. Its sad but it seems like most of those companies are the McDonald's of the computer industry, you don't have to know anything beyond Windows and how to use a mouse to get a job there and judging from the odd looks I get whenever I mention anything outside of Windows (such as Linux, *BSD, Etc.) most of them don't.
The problem though is plugins. Why do you even need Flash/Java plugins? All the Flash one seems to do is use up 100% CPU on Linux and Java Applets are too slow for general use many times. AJAX (sorta) fixes this with how you don't need a plugin to view things and because it is not outside of the browser, it makes having your browser be 100% open source whereas Flash is proprietary (unless you want to use GNASH which, in my experience only really lets you view banner ads). So while a different protocol would be nice, AJAX is much much nicer then Flash/Java or other "plugins" that are used to create applications on websites.
MOST people use the net daily, but older folks really don't depend on it.
However, they can't live without "old forms" of communication. Such as the paper, and sometimes radio and TV. Now if they were trying to restrict who could read say, the paper, it would be a human rights violation, but now with the 'net replacing it, human rights of communications are being restricted because of the influence and corruption of the *AA (and other nation's equivalent of it). The countries that most of its citizens would boycott the summer Olympics because of China's human rights violations turn a blind eye to what is happening in their country.
Slashdot Mirror
But, some of the things make Ubuntu Ubuntu and Fedora Fedora. For example, having no root account by default makes Ubuntu different, it also makes it more secure then say Fedora which you use su to get to the root account. That will make scripting different because if it is Ubuntu you put sudo if it is Fedora you use su. Ubuntu is more likely to add more proprietary drivers for things to make them "just work", Fedora on the other hand prefers to use 100% free software and may make things a bit more complex to set up some things. Then there are other differences, Red Hat developed Anaconda therefore it is more likely to use it then Ubiquity, Ubuntu's installer. Red Hat developed RPM, Ubuntu is from Debian which developed Deb, therefore there will be differences. This isn't a bad thing though, RPM lately has had to become faster and better to compete with Deb and both Anaconda and Ubiquity are trying to make the distro as easy to install as possible.
The problem is though, what I find is easy might not be what you find is easy. What a lifetime Mac user finds is easy isn't what a lifetime Windows user thinks is easy. There are interfaces that are "easy" already out there, the problem is, to many, easy is simply little customization available. A common interface though, isn't what every computer needs though. For my aging Pentium III, JWM might be great for it, for someone with a quad core CPU and a fast graphics card Compiz-Fusion might be great for it. My aging Dell with a Pentium 4-era Celeron is great when using Xubuntu, however regular Ubuntu or Kubuntu is too slow for it. Different situations need different solutions. Different people need different solutions. Myself I find that Ubuntu is by far the easiest to give to a new computer user, for the long-term Windows user though, Kubuntu seems to be better. The thing that makes Linux great is there is no one thing that a Linux distro is, and thats part of the reason it is growing.
No, I don't think so really. The problem is a Mac is considered to be a Mac, it has its own interface that people are willing to use because it is a Mac, not a PC but a Mac. When someone installs Linux, they expect it to be like Windows because it is on a machine that had Windows on it, when it isn't the cheap copy of Windows they were looking for they don't bother to learn it and dismiss Linux as having a horrible UI because they won't learn it. The concept of an operating system that runs on most computers has been lost and is replaced with Windows running on X86 based computers (PCs) and OS X running on Macs, so often it seems that in order to explain what Linux really is you have to compare it to Windows, from there people get the wrong idea that the interface is just like Windows and see it as a free copy, when they see GNOME/KDE/XFCE they are confused as it isn't Windows.
That is correct, however BitTorrent is a much faster way to download it, when it is a new release of something popular such as Ubuntu, HTTP downloads are around 30KB/Second while torrents are around 200Kb/Second, therefore, there is little justification to not use BitTorrent when downloading large files, and when you figure that BitTorrent doesn't stress the servers of the project, it is a better choice in the long run too.
So yes you are right, but that's the theory. Let's look at the facts. There is more illegal software than legal software. And I am sure it is clogging the networks of Comcast and other network providers.
There is illegal software via HTTP and FTP too, in fact one might say that there is just as much via HTTP as via P2P. As for clogging the networks, the ISPs should have gotten more bandwidth before they offered higher speed Internet or at least have it in their advertising that they throttle P2P and certainly contracts. It would be like if I set up a huge pile of sand in my backyard, and I had people pay $40 per month to get as much sand as they wanted and it said so in the contract and through advertising. Of course some people only needed a bit of sand and took some home in buckets, others would take bigger ones. However, fearing that my sand would run out I poked holes in all of the larger buckets making them carry much less. People would have a right to be mad at me for promising unlimited sand and then limiting it. Same thing with the ISPs
Don't like, switch!
I don't know where you live, but here in the US there are about 3 main ISPs and most if not all have torrent throttling. Some of the more rural areas only have one way of getting high-speed internet and if you don't like that ISP it is either that or dial-up. And as for creating your own company, the grants the government/cities gave out to help get internet to the world, chances are won't be given again making it impossible to
The same thing is happening with Linux. If you want to download the latest release of Ubuntu in a few days to a few weeks after it has been released using HTTP, you will find that the connection's max speed is around 30KB/Second, the torrent however hits around 200Kb/Second. If you want the release and don't want to mess with time-out errors, torrenting it is the only way you can really get it.
So now I am not allowed to use my rights to download GPL'd software or public domain software now? Implying that P2P is all illegal copying is incorrect and makes you look misinformed. P2P can contain free-to-copy files along with not-free-to-copy files as can HTTP/FTP/Etc. So can CDs, Hard disks, Floppy Disks, Cassette Tapes, Flash drives, the list goes on and on. Just because some people use knives to kill people shouldn't mean that we have to now use forks to cut our meat.
No, it is an issue of me thinking that there is no moral reason to say that copyright infringement is stealing or even wrong. Can I agree that it is illegal, yes, but do you think that the quiz will be based on emotion or facts? My guess is emotion, they won't ask questions of "Is copyright infringement illegal" but "How much money has the film industry lost due to piracy" or "Is copyright infringement stealing". Anyone in favor of copyright reform would either have to A) lie or B) be indoctrinated with it. It manages to stop any anti-copyright or copyright reform movement as you would have to agree to believing in copyright in order to use a significant portion of the Internet.
So now, with that logic though, where does it stop? If I decide to buy a pocketknife to go camping with should I have to pass a quiz about all the dangers I can do by using a pocketknife? Should I have to take a quiz over murder/assault/who knows what else to be able to buy one? I don't think so. The smartest thing though for the university to do, is hire a private ISP to take over all the non LAN-related stuff they have that way the students get the real Internet and the university doesn't have to worry about what files the students are downloading, or we can throw in a a dash of lets-not-have-a-monopoly and let there be competition in college dorms for ISPs!
Or you know, just go off-campus for a bit, fire up your torrents on some guy's linksys network and download them. Granted with gas as high as it is, it might be cheaper to just buy the CDs, but if the CDs have DRM or rootkits on them.....
So, whenever I click on Ubuntu_8.04.Torrent a box will pop up asking me for a capcha? I don't see how this will work unless either A) The school uses a server on the local network preventing you from downloading anything (bad idea, leaves the network open to crackers and it can be easily circumnavigated) or B) The school owns all the torrent sites preventing you from downloading them without a capcha.
Exactly, these questions that will surely be asked on the test will try to make it seem like copyright infringement is stealing as much as 2+2=4 rather then asking a moral question that can be taken either way. I am surprised to see that whenever a professor expresses views that might be objectionable the media attacks them, but with "piracy" they seem to make it seem like it is stealing when it clearly is not.
If the question is why is stealing bad, the answer would be that the person being stolen from doesn't have what got stolen. For example if someone stole your car, the bad part wouldn't be that someone has a new car but rather you don't have a car. With piracy though its the opposite, for downloading a song no one has any less songs as they can be copied and you have a new song, the RIAA seem to punish the fact you have a new song rather then the infinite supply of songs is running out. This seems to beg the question, if we can ever create a replicator that will make a perfect copy of things without doing any harm to the original will making a new item be called stealing? Because, has history is showing us, in a way that already has happened just with music and not physical goods.
How pointless is this? First off, people need to know that P2P != Illegal. Seriously, because I can download ROMs and other copyrighted work easily over HTTP should that be banned too? I can download others via FTP. I can download still others over various chat programs. The fact that P2P can allow you to easily download files quicker with less cost then with HTTP suddenly makes this technology "evil"? And before anyone says "Oh but most people download illegal things via P2P!!!", how many more illegal things do people download via HTTP? Im guessing a lot more, with "pirated" YouTube music videos being posted all the time (yet thankfully the RIAA isn't suing the users of YouTube... yet) And also, has anyone tried to download Linux ISOs of a popular distro a day to a few weeks after release via HTTP? You are lucky to get 30 KB/Second whereas with P2P you can top 200 KB/Second easily.
For the casual to hardcore gamer though, console gaming usually is better. With a console you usually have around 5-8 years of which the platform will have new games released for it unless that platform is a total failure (Such as the Virtual Boy). With a PC you have to keep upgrading. A game released 3 years from now won't run as well as a game made today on today's hardware, however with a console usually a game released at the end of life will run just as well or even better then a game made on the console's launch date. Also, with PC gaming you have the problem of Windows (unless you feel like hacking WINE to make the newest games work, there isn't many native Linux games, though gaming is improving on Linux) which, Vista uses up much, much, much, much, much more resources then XP to run at the same level. So your XP system which ran 1 Gig of RAM, decent video card, high-end P4 could run many games decently, an "upgrade" to Vista would most likely require an extra 2 gigs of RAM, twice the CPU power and most likely a new video card to get the exact same level of performance. Console gaming usually doesn't have that problem, though some hardware gets redesigned (Game Boy to Game Boy Pocket, the fat PS1 to the slim PS1, PSP to PSP Slim and Lite, GBA to GBA SP) games will run at the same level on both of them. PC gaming is great if you have $1000 to waste on upgrades and a new computer, console gaming is great if you have say $500 to buy a bunch of games and a system. For most people console gaming wins.
No, it only means that there are other companies that don't admit to throttling P2P. Most uninformed people would switch to one that doesn't openly admit it thinking that because they don't admit it they don't throttle. That seems to be the trend in the general public.
Isn't that what all monopolies want us to do? All MS wants us to do is keep paying for needless Windows licences while they don't improve it much, pay for Office because MS can't be bothered to include a decent word processor, pay for Windows OneCare because they can't fix their swiss-cheese OS, pay for DRM-ed music because they belive that all anyone does with DRM-free music is share it (and of course we all know that transfering media from your computer to a CD-ROM/MP3 player/another computer is morally wrong!11!11!) All the oil companies want us to do is pay for the $4/gallon of gas while beliving all the "oil is scarce" nonsense. All the government wants us to do is keep being patriotic so they can go on witch hunts for "terrorists" on American citizens. To keep us in paranoia about how obviously they need to wiretap more American phones because they might be a terrorist. To keep help "keep crime down" by restricting our second amendment right to bear arms. All the record companies want us to do is keep buying a copy of a song for every device we own. To believe in all this "piracy" nonsense and how if you transfer your legally bought CD to a computer/MP3 player/another CD/Home server is now illegal. To believe that fair use is illegal. To make us believe that all "pirates" bring down the economy/cause global warming/are responsible for drownings/deface Internet sites or other outrageous things.
The fact is, monopolies are much like oppressive governments, they try to make the public not think. But to just exist and "consume" whatever crap they throw at us.
But that is what the contract states (usually) or at least the advertising either directly says it or implies it. It would be equivalent as some company offering a price for an item and then that item never being available for purchase at the stated price. Someone should really sue these ISPs. The bad part though is, if you are like most people there are only 2-3 ISPs in your town to chose from, in worst cases there is only one ISP that offers high-speed Internet.
No the big complaint would be if Windows was so easy to install, it would have updated versions to work with newer hardware (perhaps as an ISO if you have a Windows serial key?). The fact is, if MS was really concerned with user-friendlyness they would make a install CD that could run as a Live CD (Yggdrasil was a Live CD that was out before 1995) that could allow for the CD to be removed and drivers to be installed (Puppy Linux will let me remove the CD when it is in live-CD mode on a ~1998 Pentium III computer with around 128 MB of RAM). That would have made the most sense. But wait, this is MS we are talking about, an OS so user-unfriendly that most have to hire some guy to do tasks which would be easy in most modern distros of Linux.
Most ISPs won't do that. Why? Because they want to give you an illusion that they are really an Internet service provider to begin with. The moment they really admit in ads that they were giving you less Internet then the real Internet (by throttling P2P connections) will be the moment that people will become aware of this and may switch companies to one that doesn't openly admit to blocking P2P.
So, what are you implying? That those who pay for a high-speed connection to the Internet shouldn't have rights to the high-speed part of it? So you are saying because I pay $XX per month to get unlimited access to the Internet at a speed of say ~1.5 MB/Second I have no right to demand use of that unlimited connection? I don't get what you are implying here, it seems like you are saying that what you pay for you have no right to use.
Sysadmins though will never be outsourced. Why? Because without them who could set up the new computers? Who would tell the employees that if you take of this thing called "Caps Lock" your password works?
All joking aside, sysadmins will probably still be in demand while other jobs can be shipped off to India because of the sheer necessity for troubleshooting and managing boxes locally (there is no way some guy from India can SSH into your computer if your internet connection is down)
While code monkeys and similar will be outsourced to whichever place has the cheapest labor, the sysadmin (and computer repair jobs) are here to stay.
However what happens if that "randomness" doesn't become all that random? First there is a possibility of an attacker using the same algorithm and managing to have a list of "garbage data" to ignore. Second there is a possibility of using a similar method to determine info about the system (for example, MS's version of it would probably be totally different then the Linux/*NIX version) and then move on to another attack.
Now, I admit I don't know that much about cryptography and this probably couldn't happen with more advanced methods but for simple ones this could make it be useless.
Tell me, when has MS ever "opened up" technology except to get people hooked and then change it? Or to destroy a competitor? I can name you many ways in which they did, IE for Unix/Mac which they abandoned as soon as Netscape was dead. On a similar note, ActiveX which in some ways forces people to use Windows and IE because the technology was (incorrectly) added into bank websites and similar. MS never, ever adheres to standards except for a way of making money and as soon as they have enough marketshare they extend and extinguish it.
You should know that most of the companies don't know a thing about software or hardware. They just plug in the drive and hit a button. Its sad but it seems like most of those companies are the McDonald's of the computer industry, you don't have to know anything beyond Windows and how to use a mouse to get a job there and judging from the odd looks I get whenever I mention anything outside of Windows (such as Linux, *BSD, Etc.) most of them don't.
The problem though is plugins. Why do you even need Flash/Java plugins? All the Flash one seems to do is use up 100% CPU on Linux and Java Applets are too slow for general use many times. AJAX (sorta) fixes this with how you don't need a plugin to view things and because it is not outside of the browser, it makes having your browser be 100% open source whereas Flash is proprietary (unless you want to use GNASH which, in my experience only really lets you view banner ads). So while a different protocol would be nice, AJAX is much much nicer then Flash/Java or other "plugins" that are used to create applications on websites.
However, they can't live without "old forms" of communication. Such as the paper, and sometimes radio and TV. Now if they were trying to restrict who could read say, the paper, it would be a human rights violation, but now with the 'net replacing it, human rights of communications are being restricted because of the influence and corruption of the *AA (and other nation's equivalent of it). The countries that most of its citizens would boycott the summer Olympics because of China's human rights violations turn a blind eye to what is happening in their country.