If SCO wins a single case in court about copyright violations, what's the point of cashing in your insurance to fight a battle that's already lost?
I think you're missing the point. If these guys have spent 6 months going over the code and they are sure that none of it infringes upon SCO's copyrights, then it's just free money for them every time someone signs up.
You need to support these distro's that really make linux child's play. They need the support of as many developers as possible, because unless Linux can really break into the home deskop market it will never suceed truely as a competitor to Microsoft other than in server and techy environments.
In a word..."good". I like the fact that Linux is a geeky OS. I think that trying to beat Microsoft on the desktop is a BAD IDEA.
Microsoft owns the desktop. That's just how it is. In the past others have brought arguable superior products to market and lost. OS/2, Mac OS, etc.
Linux will get left behind if everyone dedicates all of their energy to making the OS "grandmother-friendly". When horses race, they wear blinders. Each horse runs his own race. No horse can see the other horses. They just run. This is what the linux community needs to do. Run its own race. Don't worry about what Microsoft is doing. Just make Linux as good as it can be.
The server market is where linux is kicking ass now. Why does it make any sense to give up on the fight that you're winning in order to go after something that you can't win?
When Microsoft was losing the "creative" market to Apple did they stop trying to dominate the "enterprise" environment? Hell no! Do what you're best at. Let the other markets develop as they may.
I'd be very interested to see how many of these people have ever experienced broadband, and if their attitudes would change if they had.
Kind of like how many people remain virgins until they're married, but once you KNOW about sex, you're far less likely to intentionally be celibate for many years.
So they try to hit up the cash cow, I think we will see more and more of these suits comming out, and all that it is going to do is make it so generic that they will get thrown out on the spot.
The suits against the tobacco and gun industries have opened the floodgates. Whenever a state needs revenue it'll sue the biggest unpopular company it can find.
Personally I don't believe that a monetary solution is what an entity would go after if they REALLY wanted to stop Microsofts practices. They'd seek to punish them by forcing them to open their code.
I feel you. I would much rather they left the cars open for these things but didn't install ALL OF THEM.
So basically my only option is an economy car.
Please remember your choice of an older car.
Some very nice cars from the early to mid 1990s are on the market. Compared to a new vehicle, you can even replace a lot of the components and still save money.
Foreign cars are more likely to be made of precision parts, with a massive cost. A new clutch kit for a Ford Taurus is around $300. A new clutch kit for my Passat is clost to $1000.
I think you're also ignoring something else that American automakers do. They recycle parts amongst models. For example, I drive a GMC Jimmy and a Chevrolet Camaro. The Jimmy's parts are interchangeable with parts from the Blazer,Bravada, S10 and S15. My Camaro's parts are interchangeable with the Firebird and Trans Am.
Since they only have to make one part for multiple models of car, these parts cost less to make. Economics of scale and all. I think that has a LOT to do with foreign cars needing more expensive parts than their american counterparts in the same price range.
The more cars that use a specific part, the more generic offerings there are and the cheaper those offerings become. There's also more parts available from used auto parts catalogues.
This is exactly what is going on with current American made cars.
I'd rather have an older, less advanced car that I actually have a chance of fixing. Who needs all this new car technology anyways?
All of this high priced technology is primarily about one thing. Fuel efficience/Emmissions requirements. It's an impossible choice really. We can have cars that we can fix affordably or we can have maximum fuel efficiency with minimal pollution.
I have two automobiles, one is 11 years old and the other is 18 years old. I can fix most of the things on them myself. Looking under the hood of a car that was made in the mid 90s or after lets me know that I don't know as much about cars as I *think* I do.
Using an O2 sensor to alter the fuel mixture/spark advance is something that makes sense to me. Using an catalytic converter to reduce CO makes sense to me. Some of these new emmissions controls are just beyond me.
Warcraft? Besides.....why blame apple for what third party developers decide? They are just following the market....
I don't think you caught my point.
My point was that you can not build a system that is compatible was Mac OS software from off the shelf components. The Mac platform is NOT open by any stretch of the imagination.
Probably not, but that isn't the question that I was asked.
Working hard?
Yes working hard. Buying or downloading ready made Apps and getting work done. Not shopping around for the best "work alike" for an established program and then tweaking to make it work.
Once again though, you Mac zealots miss my point. I don't see any need to continue talking in circles.
Are you more concerned with using specific titles or with getting work done?
Working hard and playing hard are my two primary uses. I'd prefer to spend that time getting work done. I don't like manually editing source files to make get them to compile. I don't like having to play a 4 year old game because the new ones aren't available. This is why I don't use a Mac anymore.
So true... this is probably why they don't try harder to combat piracy in Southeast Asia.
Exactly, here in the US you can lose your house or business if you get caught trading in illegally copied software. In 3rd world countries what are they going to do, take away your oxen and goats?
I think you just want to be argumentative because you got ANI'd.
Not at all. After working for DishNetwork I have no desire to subscribe to satellite TV.
I suspect that we were both disregarding the point of the other's argument. Your point being that you think it would be easy for them to track down people who lie about their physical locations. My point being that it's not their job to do things that will hurt their business.
Having someone from DirecTV come knock on your door to verify your installation would be 10x more invasive than requiring a single dial-in connection.
It's not their job. By that reasoning mail order companies should send people out to verify that you live in the state where you had the equipment shipped to make sure that you pay the sales (usage) tax to the correct state. It's not their job to incur that expense.
That residential agreement is only binding if you are leasing the equipment from them. If you buy the equipment outright, you don't have to sign the agreement.
I know personally that DishNetwork ONLY uses the telephone line for PPV. Management instructs CSRs to tell customers that PPV is the only use for the phone line. It would be a breech of the verbal agreements that they have made if they used it for other uses.
You have no idea of how many people do not and will not connect their boxes to telephone lines. People are afraid that the company will track their viewing habits or sell them to marketers.
Many people DO NOT and WILL NOT connect their receivers to telephone lines.
I'm sure that some will respond with "Well then tough shit for those people, don't let them use the service". To which I reply that it's not in any business's best interests to alienate their customers. If you treat all of your customers like thieves you have no right to complain when they stop partaking of your services (*cough*RIAA*cough*).
These companies operate with a certain measure of trust. It's simply not their responsibility to verify all of the information that they are given by their customers.
DirecTV is known to tolerate a "social hack" that allows access to a service you're geographically prohibited from getting. Simply call them and tell them that you want to change your "service address" but not your "billing address"... they don't bother to verify the service address you submit, and then all of your equipment will have access to the programming somebody at that location would have gotten, including major network and regional sports network programs.
It wouldn't be possible for them to verify it. Are they supposed to send someone out to the address of EVERY customer every time someone reports a change of service address?
When I worked for Echostar I used to hint to people to do this without actually saying it.
For example, the rules for network qualification are based upon 50 year old maps. They don't take into consideration things like new buildings that can block signal in urban areas or new powerlines that interfere with broadcast signals.
So someone would call in and want to order network programming and their address wouldn't qualify, I'd apologize to them and tell them that I couldn't do it. Often I'd hear things like "My brother lives 3 blocks away and he can get these." I'd check the brother's address and he in fact did qualify for networks. I'd then tell the customer "Yes sir, that address does qualify for networks. If your service address were in that area, you'd be able to get these too." The smart people would pick up on the inflection in my voice and ask if they could have separate service and billing addresses. The obvious answer is Yes they could. They would then proceed to give me a service address that was the same as the "brother's" address and add an "A" or "1/2" to the house number. Boom, they'd qualify for networks. My company was blameless because we can't be held responsible if someone lies to us about their address. And I got the credit for another upsell.
Echostar has made it harder for people to do this though. They've switched most of their local programming to their "spot beam" satellites. 3 years ago, all of their local networks were broadcast all over the continental US. The only thing that prevented you from getting Pittsburgh's local channels while you were in Las Vegas was the setting on Echostar's computer system. In 2002 they started spotbeaming their locals so for example the Pittsburgh local channels could only be received while IN the Pittsburgh area. If you had a mobile home and you drove from Pittsburgh to Washington DC you can't pick up the signal for Pittsburgh locals anymore. They didn't do this just to comply with SHVIA regulations. They did it so they could pack more channels into the part of the spectrum that they were granted. By restricting the signals in this way, they made it possible to spotbeam the channels for 5 cities in the portion of the spectrum that was originally taken up by 1 city's local channels.
They've done nothing to stop it because they get sales they otherwise wouldn't have gotten, and it's really the content suppliers who are losing out of money they'd otherwise be entitled to.
Local content providers don't lose out on anything. Most of the people who do this are living in the "shadow" of some structure that is preventing them from picking up broadcast signals anyway. If you can't watch a channel, you can't see the commercials. The local channel never had you in the first place, they aren't losing anything when you get the channels from another city. Cable companies lobbied congress HARD to get those rules into place. It was about forcing the hand of consumers, and protecting their business model.
The only thing I can think of that makes any sense is to have the judge/jury that hears the case also decide if the suit had merit. Even if you don't prove your burden and win, you still might have had a case with merit. In the event of a meritless case, THEN you pay.
Otherwise, let the system work the way it does now.
I find his attitude to the situation utterly astonishing and not a little bizarre.
You should think a bit more about the politics involved.
Ashcroft is charged with protecting the country, he can't do this if he loses his job. The chances of him losing his job increast astronomically if he alienates the conservative base that elected his boss.
I am a two issue Republican. I vote based on 2nd amendment rights and abortion. Many other conservatives are like me. Please understand that these are not the only 2 issues that I care about, but I address those other concerns in primary elections. I didn't vote for GWB in the 2000 primary. But he was the choice of my party. Like all politics, the 2000 presidential election was a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Gore's pro-choice and anti-2nd amendment stance made it impossible for me to vote for him. Kerry's pro-choice and anti-2nd amentment senate record makes it impossible for me to vote for him.
I am stuck voting for GWB because he's on my side of the 2 most important issues to me. The Democrats have many social and economic stances that make a great deal of sense to me. However their social positions make them an inviable party to me.
Back on target, Ashcroft's hands-off stance on the 2nd amendment is a way for him to keep his job and continue going about "protecting the country" in the manner that he feels will be most successful. Even if most of us think he's wrong about the best method of doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
If SCO wins a single case in court about copyright violations, what's the point of cashing in your insurance to fight a battle that's already lost?
I think you're missing the point. If these guys have spent 6 months going over the code and they are sure that none of it infringes upon SCO's copyrights, then it's just free money for them every time someone signs up.
LK
You need to support these distro's that really make linux child's play. They need the support of as many developers as possible, because unless Linux can really break into the home deskop market it will never suceed truely as a competitor to Microsoft other than in server and techy environments.
In a word..."good". I like the fact that Linux is a geeky OS. I think that trying to beat Microsoft on the desktop is a BAD IDEA.
Microsoft owns the desktop. That's just how it is. In the past others have brought arguable superior products to market and lost. OS/2, Mac OS, etc.
Linux will get left behind if everyone dedicates all of their energy to making the OS "grandmother-friendly". When horses race, they wear blinders. Each horse runs his own race. No horse can see the other horses. They just run. This is what the linux community needs to do. Run its own race. Don't worry about what Microsoft is doing. Just make Linux as good as it can be.
The server market is where linux is kicking ass now. Why does it make any sense to give up on the fight that you're winning in order to go after something that you can't win?
When Microsoft was losing the "creative" market to Apple did they stop trying to dominate the "enterprise" environment? Hell no! Do what you're best at. Let the other markets develop as they may.
LK
The users won't care *why* it doesn't work, just *that* it doesn't work.
Not necessarily. Just look at how Mac users blame everyone except Apple when something isn't available for Mac.
LK
I'd be very interested to see how many of these people have ever experienced broadband, and if their attitudes would change if they had.
Kind of like how many people remain virgins until they're married, but once you KNOW about sex, you're far less likely to intentionally be celibate for many years.
LK
So they try to hit up the cash cow, I think we will see more and more of these suits comming out, and all that it is going to do is make it so generic that they will get thrown out on the spot.
The suits against the tobacco and gun industries have opened the floodgates. Whenever a state needs revenue it'll sue the biggest unpopular company it can find.
Personally I don't believe that a monetary solution is what an entity would go after if they REALLY wanted to stop Microsofts practices. They'd seek to punish them by forcing them to open their code.
THAT would alter Microsoft's behavior overnight.
LK
I feel you. I would much rather they left the cars open for these things but didn't install ALL OF THEM.
So basically my only option is an economy car.
Please remember your choice of an older car.
Some very nice cars from the early to mid 1990s are on the market. Compared to a new vehicle, you can even replace a lot of the components and still save money.
LK
Foreign cars are more likely to be made of precision parts, with a massive cost. A new clutch kit for a Ford Taurus is around $300. A new clutch kit for my Passat is clost to $1000.
I think you're also ignoring something else that American automakers do. They recycle parts amongst models. For example, I drive a GMC Jimmy and a Chevrolet Camaro. The Jimmy's parts are interchangeable with parts from the Blazer,Bravada, S10 and S15. My Camaro's parts are interchangeable with the Firebird and Trans Am.
Since they only have to make one part for multiple models of car, these parts cost less to make. Economics of scale and all. I think that has a LOT to do with foreign cars needing more expensive parts than their american counterparts in the same price range.
The more cars that use a specific part, the more generic offerings there are and the cheaper those offerings become. There's also more parts available from used auto parts catalogues.
This is exactly what is going on with current American made cars.
LK
I'd rather have an older, less advanced car that I actually have a chance of fixing. Who needs all this new car technology anyways?
All of this high priced technology is primarily about one thing. Fuel efficience/Emmissions requirements. It's an impossible choice really. We can have cars that we can fix affordably or we can have maximum fuel efficiency with minimal pollution.
I have two automobiles, one is 11 years old and the other is 18 years old. I can fix most of the things on them myself. Looking under the hood of a car that was made in the mid 90s or after lets me know that I don't know as much about cars as I *think* I do.
Using an O2 sensor to alter the fuel mixture/spark advance is something that makes sense to me. Using an catalytic converter to reduce CO makes sense to me. Some of these new emmissions controls are just beyond me.
LK
Warcraft? Besides.....why blame apple for what third party developers decide? They are just following the market....
I don't think you caught my point.
My point was that you can not build a system that is compatible was Mac OS software from off the shelf components. The Mac platform is NOT open by any stretch of the imagination.
LK
Do you think RTA of Queensland cares about games?
Probably not, but that isn't the question that I was asked.
Working hard?
Yes working hard. Buying or downloading ready made Apps and getting work done. Not shopping around for the best "work alike" for an established program and then tweaking to make it work.
Once again though, you Mac zealots miss my point. I don't see any need to continue talking in circles.
LK
Are you more concerned with using specific titles or with getting work done?
Working hard and playing hard are my two primary uses. I'd prefer to spend that time getting work done. I don't like manually editing source files to make get them to compile. I don't like having to play a 4 year old game because the new ones aren't available. This is why I don't use a Mac anymore.
LK
That would seem to be a good way to sell it--don't they have less silly vocal homonyms than English? Right! Not left? No, right!
Yeah, but how's a computer supposed to recognize all of that gibberish?
Seriously though you raise a good point, the hodge-podge of words from every language on the planet that is modern english is difficult to parse.
Something like Spanish or especially French would be good candidates for non-english speech recognition.
Lastly I think you mean homophones. Minute (60 seconds)and Minute (tiny)are homonyms but when spoken they sound much different.
LK
So true... this is probably why they don't try harder to combat piracy in Southeast Asia.
Exactly, here in the US you can lose your house or business if you get caught trading in illegally copied software. In 3rd world countries what are they going to do, take away your oxen and goats?
LK
I think you just want to be argumentative because you got ANI'd.
Not at all. After working for DishNetwork I have no desire to subscribe to satellite TV.
I suspect that we were both disregarding the point of the other's argument. Your point being that you think it would be easy for them to track down people who lie about their physical locations. My point being that it's not their job to do things that will hurt their business.
LK
Gigablast is in no way going to usurp Google.
No this year at least. I remember when no one thought that a bunch of college student with this Google thing would be able to unseat Yahoo.
LK
With no signature or any other affirmation of those terms there is nothing legally binding.
LK
Having someone from DirecTV come knock on your door to verify your installation would be 10x more invasive than requiring a single dial-in connection.
It's not their job. By that reasoning mail order companies should send people out to verify that you live in the state where you had the equipment shipped to make sure that you pay the sales (usage) tax to the correct state. It's not their job to incur that expense.
LK
That residential agreement is only binding if you are leasing the equipment from them. If you buy the equipment outright, you don't have to sign the agreement.
I know personally that DishNetwork ONLY uses the telephone line for PPV. Management instructs CSRs to tell customers that PPV is the only use for the phone line. It would be a breech of the verbal agreements that they have made if they used it for other uses.
LK
since every piece of DirecTV marketing material says that a land-based phone line must be connected to the decoder at all times.
That very provision is a large part of the reason why they lost their position as the industry leader to DishNetwork.
I know this because when I worked for DishNetwork many of our new subscribers told me that's why they left DirecTV.
LK
You have no idea of how many people do not and will not connect their boxes to telephone lines. People are afraid that the company will track their viewing habits or sell them to marketers.
Many people DO NOT and WILL NOT connect their receivers to telephone lines.
I'm sure that some will respond with "Well then tough shit for those people, don't let them use the service". To which I reply that it's not in any business's best interests to alienate their customers. If you treat all of your customers like thieves you have no right to complain when they stop partaking of your services (*cough*RIAA*cough*).
These companies operate with a certain measure of trust. It's simply not their responsibility to verify all of the information that they are given by their customers.
LK
DirecTV is known to tolerate a "social hack" that allows access to a service you're geographically prohibited from getting. Simply call them and tell them that you want to change your "service address" but not your "billing address"... they don't bother to verify the service address you submit, and then all of your equipment will have access to the programming somebody at that location would have gotten, including major network and regional sports network programs.
It wouldn't be possible for them to verify it. Are they supposed to send someone out to the address of EVERY customer every time someone reports a change of service address?
When I worked for Echostar I used to hint to people to do this without actually saying it.
For example, the rules for network qualification are based upon 50 year old maps. They don't take into consideration things like new buildings that can block signal in urban areas or new powerlines that interfere with broadcast signals.
So someone would call in and want to order network programming and their address wouldn't qualify, I'd apologize to them and tell them that I couldn't do it. Often I'd hear things like "My brother lives 3 blocks away and he can get these." I'd check the brother's address and he in fact did qualify for networks. I'd then tell the customer "Yes sir, that address does qualify for networks. If your service address were in that area, you'd be able to get these too." The smart people would pick up on the inflection in my voice and ask if they could have separate service and billing addresses. The obvious answer is Yes they could. They would then proceed to give me a service address that was the same as the "brother's" address and add an "A" or "1/2" to the house number. Boom, they'd qualify for networks. My company was blameless because we can't be held responsible if someone lies to us about their address. And I got the credit for another upsell.
Echostar has made it harder for people to do this though. They've switched most of their local programming to their "spot beam" satellites. 3 years ago, all of their local networks were broadcast all over the continental US. The only thing that prevented you from getting Pittsburgh's local channels while you were in Las Vegas was the setting on Echostar's computer system. In 2002 they started spotbeaming their locals so for example the Pittsburgh local channels could only be received while IN the Pittsburgh area. If you had a mobile home and you drove from Pittsburgh to Washington DC you can't pick up the signal for Pittsburgh locals anymore. They didn't do this just to comply with SHVIA regulations. They did it so they could pack more channels into the part of the spectrum that they were granted. By restricting the signals in this way, they made it possible to spotbeam the channels for 5 cities in the portion of the spectrum that was originally taken up by 1 city's local channels.
They've done nothing to stop it because they get sales they otherwise wouldn't have gotten, and it's really the content suppliers who are losing out of money they'd otherwise be entitled to.
Local content providers don't lose out on anything. Most of the people who do this are living in the "shadow" of some structure that is preventing them from picking up broadcast signals anyway. If you can't watch a channel, you can't see the commercials. The local channel never had you in the first place, they aren't losing anything when you get the channels from another city. Cable companies lobbied congress HARD to get those rules into place. It was about forcing the hand of consumers, and protecting their business model.
LK
The only thing I can think of that makes any sense is to have the judge/jury that hears the case also decide if the suit had merit. Even if you don't prove your burden and win, you still might have had a case with merit. In the event of a meritless case, THEN you pay.
Otherwise, let the system work the way it does now.
LK
I find his attitude to the situation utterly astonishing and not a little bizarre.
You should think a bit more about the politics involved.
Ashcroft is charged with protecting the country, he can't do this if he loses his job. The chances of him losing his job increast astronomically if he alienates the conservative base that elected his boss.
I am a two issue Republican. I vote based on 2nd amendment rights and abortion. Many other conservatives are like me. Please understand that these are not the only 2 issues that I care about, but I address those other concerns in primary elections. I didn't vote for GWB in the 2000 primary. But he was the choice of my party. Like all politics, the 2000 presidential election was a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Gore's pro-choice and anti-2nd amendment stance made it impossible for me to vote for him. Kerry's pro-choice and anti-2nd amentment senate record makes it impossible for me to vote for him.
I am stuck voting for GWB because he's on my side of the 2 most important issues to me. The Democrats have many social and economic stances that make a great deal of sense to me. However their social positions make them an inviable party to me.
Back on target, Ashcroft's hands-off stance on the 2nd amendment is a way for him to keep his job and continue going about "protecting the country" in the manner that he feels will be most successful. Even if most of us think he's wrong about the best method of doing so.
LK
Adobe was just an example. Replace Adobe with any other publisher of MacOS software and the point is still the same.
LK
Or did you mean binary compatible?
Yes. A computer that you can put an Apple OS X CD into it and get it installed. A computer that you can take an Adobe CD and install it.
LK