I find it so funny that consumers apparently need to be "protected" from an OS. Really, they aren't protecting consumers as much as protecting the competitors of MS.
The information gathered through Passport is subject to cracker attack. The crackers can then distribute a whole database of private information to whatever source they want to, regardless of any promises of privacy given by Microsoft or the government. From this, it is quite clear that the goal is protecting consumers. You are right that competitors would also benefit, but only in the short term, and this is quite minor compared to the danger XP poses for unwary consumers.
Caveat emptor.
Re:The huge difference between the two
on
Microsoft's Future
·
· Score: 2
I don't see microsoft going down that road. Even though they're strategy is failing (or is at leasted doomed to).. they seem very pigheaded about continuing on the same route.
If they stay on the track they're on, they'll spiral down just like IBM almost did.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I've been feeling much the same way for a while regarding Microsoft.
Microsoft has a long way to go before they fall as far as IBM fell -- although it's clear that with the path they're taking they're doomed to. I agree that they have failed to learn from History, or must somehow feel they're immune to the same market forces that did in IBM in the late 80's. But so did IBM at this same point. It took IBM several years and a complete change in management before they even began to address the problem, and the reason IBM reinvented itself was because, at that point, they simply had no choice.
Actually, there are more Presbyterians in positions of power than any other religion/denomination. And Presbyterians aren't a proportionately larger denomination, either.
Of course, the fact that everyone thinks Jews run the media is really just one of our clever tactics to convince the world that we aren't really running the show. Bwahahahaha! Long live the Great Presbyterian Conspiracy!
"Feinstein is a jew name. I'm very sure an arab wouldn't mind killing a few of those. Hell, I would't mind and I'm just a normal white guy.
"Don't know you know that RIAA and MPAA--two of her favorite lobbies--are bankrolled by Jewish money? It's all a Jew-controlled New World Order conspiracy."
Die, Nazi bitch.
Do you have any evidence to back up your racist assertions? Or are you just flaming away to make up for small penis size?
Why is it every time I see something I disagree with -- be it the right for the media to report our troop movements to the Taliban, or the right for the RIAA to rip off every artist and music fan in the world, and now THIS -- I see Diane Feinstein staunchly supporting it? Every time I see her name in lights, it's with something I detest.
It's a tragedy that she was recently re-elected; we have five more years of this twit being in office.
Why oh why couldn't that anthrax have affected her instead??? Oh, that's right, because the anthrax is being sent out by anti-americans, and they'd hate to kill one of their own kind.
Yes, but part of the responsibility of liberty is not to abuse that freedom. For example, the way the terrorists used the openness of our society to murder thousands of innocents is an abuse of freedom. There is also a burden on all of us in the USA to ensure, through education of ourselves and our children, that our speech and decisions as a democracy are well-informed.
I question the motives and knowledge of those who oppose military actions at this point.
The reason buying a recording of a performance was worth money was because average folks couldn't make high-quality recordings easily. But that's no longer the case. I can make a recording of a song in my bedroom now that has the same quality as most studio recordings, and distribute it on CD's or MP3's for next to nothing.
It's not about the copying. It's about the product. The product has lost its value, yet they still charge the same price.
It's like what would happen if we changed from highly-controlled currency to "maple leaves" as currency. Eventually, the value of a "leaf" drops through the floor.
And as for the artists, there is a glut of highly talented performers and songwriters in the world, not a scarcity. That's why it's so hard to "break into" the industry.
So don't blame the handful of people who violate the SR copyrights. Their actions are merely a reflection of an efficient free market. There is a glut of talent and high-quality recording is now available to the masses. The value of the product has dropped, while the cost has stayed high. The result of this in an efficient market is that either fewer people will buy the product, or if demand has not waned, large numbers of people will resort to means of obtaining it at substantially less than it's worth.
The solution for the record companies is very simple. Charge less for CD's. Substantively less. I'm talking about $5-$6 per album, maximum.
What's that you say? You mean, people can't make a profit when the price is so low?
Of course they can't. And that's the point he was making. The technology has eliminated the industry.
Bingo. Turing served a government that demonized him.
Hackers shouldn't provide the same blind devotion. If the US Government really wants help from hackers, the first thing the US Government can do is STOP DEMONIZING THE HACKERS! Drop the DMCA, drop the case against Dmitry, drop the new laws being introduce that criminalize the use of a computer for everything but shopping on eBay, and GIVE US SOME GUARANTEES THAT OUR FREEDOMS WILL BE PROTECTED!
If the US Government wants our aid, they need to make efforts to indicate their good faith towards us. And they have a LOT of catching up to do.
I'll be the biggest patriot you've ever seen when the Liberty this country is supposed to stand for is restored to me. It is Liberty that makes the country great, not the fact that it happens to be (out of some random chance) where I was born, live, and work.
In the grand tradition of governments and hackers as usual. They do everything they can to criminalize us and demonize us, and now they want our help. Will they reward us the same way the British government rewarded Alan Turing, by "treating" his homosexuality "disease?"
If you're a hacker, my suggestion to you is that you don't just help out of the goodness of your heart. Fair is fair: Demand just compensation, in the form of pro-hacker legislation and ditching the DMCA and the laws that are currently on the table. If they want hacker help, they're going to have to change the laws to be more hacker friendly.
It's that simple, folks. If they don't support you, you don't support them. If the USA really wants hackers to help them, the first thing the USA can do is to help the hackers.
That does mitigate the news somewhat, but it's still bad news for AMD. Most people buy computers through large pre-built companies like Gateway and Dell, so losing a major OEM is going to hurt AMD's bottom line.
But this isn't the first fishy thing I've heard about how Gateway's running their business in the past year. It does seem suspicious that they would cut their more value-oriented lines right when those are what people are more likely to buy.
if freedom is something that we have to proactively go after, then WHY THE F**K cant the people setup to be representatives go after the peoples opinion.
The answer is obvious, and was well-known by the Founding Fathers of our country: Because power corrupts. Among the other philosophers, the founders of the USA were fans of Thomas Hobbes, who had a dim view of human nature.
This is why "the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance" (Jefferson). Freedom in life always implies responsibility. And in this country, the individual freedoms we enjoy demand individual responsibility to ensure that those freedoms are defended, and not just through voting once every two or four years.
It's just like when you first move away from home and discover that no one will do your laundry and cleaning for you. When you live in a democracy someone WILL make policy for you -- but if you don't get involved, expect it to be a policy you don't like.
Cash is private. I won't get new types of junk mail when I pay cash.
Cash is convenient. If I sell my CD's at a party or a gig, I don't have to bring a card-swiper with me just to process the transaction.
Cash is direct. I give the money to the person I want to have it, and I know that person will get it. I want the big tip to go to my waiter, who kept my coffee mug full for the past three hours while I was studying, without the money going into a pool that's shared with the guy who forgot half his table's order.
Cash is real. I can't spend cash I don't have.
Credit cards have great value for the obvious reasons. But they don't replace all of the functions paper notes and coins provide.
Car stereos are expensive enough as it is. A head unit is only part of the cost if you want decent sound; you also have to look into new speakers, plus installation cost (or a weekend if you do it yourself).
I worked for a telecom company that had the same problem; they spared no expense ensuring they had the finest possible product. The problem was that they then had to push that cost onto customers and finance building the product. They just had their second round of layoffs, and are down to a third of the size they were at a year ago.
I don't see why this is bad news. Of course, you should expect it to be a great product for $1k, but for most users, why spend $1k when you can get a $200 MP3 CD unit? Heck, you can get a portable MP3 CD player and a cassette-deck adapter for less than $100. MP3 sound quality isn't anything to shout about, so why not?
I don't think your comments about folks who buy cars is really relevant, though. I'm old enough to buy a car and I sure as heck know how to do the MP3 thing. Even guys in Marketing here at work listen to their huge libraries of encoded MP3's while they type up reports.
But the real issue is, as you say, that you don't really get $800 worth of extra value out of the $800 extra you spend on one of these. You can do the same thing with a handful of MP3 CD's, which are more convenient to handle and cheap as dirt.
You have the order wrong. You give them jewelry, THEN television, THEN McDonald's...but only after having first giving them Food, Clothing, and Shelter. (Those can be given all at once.)
First, take care of basic needs. For this, they will be thankful, and begin to trust you. Once they are accustomed to being fed, clothed, and sheltered, THEN you start giving them nicer things, like jewelry. Simple things at first. A necklace here, a watch there.
But take your time. The truth is, they will ask for these things -- baubles and trinkets, then technology, then full-scale commercialism -- by themselves, over a period of many years. Children especially are vulnerable; once introduced to new things, they don't reject them or let them go. They don't understand why they ought to reject them.
True franchise-based business opportunities may not open for a whole generation. But by that time, the terrorists will be too late. The freedom and prosperity Americans take for granted will be fully integrated into their lifestyle along with Islam.
Okay...you're right, maybe McDonald's isn't such a wonderful idea. It's a better idea than a Mickey D's in India, though.:)
I probably should have put more emphasis on making life better for their women -- letting women be educated, wear normal clothes, leave the freaking house...
Don't forget that, as the LA Times article points out, these people do not yearn for worldly goods so the lure of (comparitive) luxury and posessions is of no value.
That's easy for one who has no luxury or posessions to say; give them comfort and security, and they will find it much harder to fight.
Perhaps the best thing that any military action can be is highly adaptive and reactive to whatever it finds. That's something that I don't know the US (or any Western) military is adequately structured to cope with.
Amen. We can't have Generals and Admirals who expect the war to be fought on their terms, and this has been a problem in the US military for a while.
Gain territory. Then make the territory safe. Then give the people within that territory everything their hearts desire. Food. Clothing. Shelter. Jewelry. Television. McDonald's.
Build them a beautiful mosque. Allow them to pray. Give them a world where they need not fear, where they are defended by the United States military.
When the Taliban tries to assert itself, it will find itself against its own population, who will have found the security and freedom we Americans usually tend to take for granted, and will sacrifice all to defend.
You'll have difficulty keeping the defectors to your side out -- just as the USA today has difficulty accepting everyone who wants to immigrate here.
You win by conquering the way Rome did. You make the conquered territory more blessed than your opponents' territory.
Those few who infiltrate will grow accustomed to the softness of the new lifestyle, and be unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to fight their cause.
You ask them what they want, and then give them more than they asked for.
Slashdot Mirror
Konqueror is aptly named, isn't it? :)
I find it so funny that consumers apparently need to be "protected" from an OS. Really, they aren't protecting consumers as much as protecting the competitors of MS.
The information gathered through Passport is subject to cracker attack. The crackers can then distribute a whole database of private information to whatever source they want to, regardless of any promises of privacy given by Microsoft or the government. From this, it is quite clear that the goal is protecting consumers. You are right that competitors would also benefit, but only in the short term, and this is quite minor compared to the danger XP poses for unwary consumers.
Caveat emptor.
I don't see microsoft going down that road. Even though they're strategy is failing (or is at leasted doomed to) .. they seem very pigheaded about continuing on the same route.
If they stay on the track they're on, they'll spiral down just like IBM almost did.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I've been feeling much the same way for a while regarding Microsoft.
Microsoft has a long way to go before they fall as far as IBM fell -- although it's clear that with the path they're taking they're doomed to. I agree that they have failed to learn from History, or must somehow feel they're immune to the same market forces that did in IBM in the late 80's. But so did IBM at this same point. It took IBM several years and a complete change in management before they even began to address the problem, and the reason IBM reinvented itself was because, at that point, they simply had no choice.
Actually, there are more Presbyterians in positions of power than any other religion/denomination. And Presbyterians aren't a proportionately larger denomination, either.
Of course, the fact that everyone thinks Jews run the media is really just one of our clever tactics to convince the world that we aren't really running the show. Bwahahahaha! Long live the Great Presbyterian Conspiracy!
"Feinstein is a jew name. I'm very sure an arab wouldn't mind killing a few of those. Hell, I would't mind and I'm just a normal white guy.
"Don't know you know that RIAA and MPAA--two of her favorite lobbies--are bankrolled by Jewish money? It's all a Jew-controlled New World Order conspiracy."
Die, Nazi bitch.
Do you have any evidence to back up your racist assertions? Or are you just flaming away to make up for small penis size?
Agreed.
Why is it every time I see something I disagree with -- be it the right for the media to report our troop movements to the Taliban, or the right for the RIAA to rip off every artist and music fan in the world, and now THIS -- I see Diane Feinstein staunchly supporting it? Every time I see her name in lights, it's with something I detest.
It's a tragedy that she was recently re-elected; we have five more years of this twit being in office.
Why oh why couldn't that anthrax have affected her instead??? Oh, that's right, because the anthrax is being sent out by anti-americans, and they'd hate to kill one of their own kind.
Tragically, when Microsoft speaks, people listen.
So it may be a cheap political backstab for Microsoft, but it will end up being a costly comment for the rest of us.
What we need, my fellow nerds, is ammunition. Political and economic ammunition, so that when they shoot at us like this, we can shoot back.
There's a rumor that the bodies of the terrorists who attacked the WTC and Pentagon have been found, and they were given a burial...
...along with the bodies of dead pigs.
Apparently, in fundamentalist Islam, being buried with a dead pig means that you go directly to Hell.
I can't say for sure, but I've heard that this is going to be a new US policy regarding the terrorists, but it's being kept hush-hush.
Yes, but part of the responsibility of liberty is not to abuse that freedom. For example, the way the terrorists used the openness of our society to murder thousands of innocents is an abuse of freedom. There is also a burden on all of us in the USA to ensure, through education of ourselves and our children, that our speech and decisions as a democracy are well-informed.
I question the motives and knowledge of those who oppose military actions at this point.
The reason buying a recording of a performance was worth money was because average folks couldn't make high-quality recordings easily. But that's no longer the case. I can make a recording of a song in my bedroom now that has the same quality as most studio recordings, and distribute it on CD's or MP3's for next to nothing.
It's not about the copying. It's about the product. The product has lost its value, yet they still charge the same price.
It's like what would happen if we changed from highly-controlled currency to "maple leaves" as currency. Eventually, the value of a "leaf" drops through the floor.
And as for the artists, there is a glut of highly talented performers and songwriters in the world, not a scarcity. That's why it's so hard to "break into" the industry.
So don't blame the handful of people who violate the SR copyrights. Their actions are merely a reflection of an efficient free market. There is a glut of talent and high-quality recording is now available to the masses. The value of the product has dropped, while the cost has stayed high. The result of this in an efficient market is that either fewer people will buy the product, or if demand has not waned, large numbers of people will resort to means of obtaining it at substantially less than it's worth.
The solution for the record companies is very simple. Charge less for CD's. Substantively less. I'm talking about $5-$6 per album, maximum.
What's that you say? You mean, people can't make a profit when the price is so low?
Of course they can't. And that's the point he was making. The technology has eliminated the industry.
Bingo. Turing served a government that demonized him.
Hackers shouldn't provide the same blind devotion. If the US Government really wants help from hackers, the first thing the US Government can do is STOP DEMONIZING THE HACKERS! Drop the DMCA, drop the case against Dmitry, drop the new laws being introduce that criminalize the use of a computer for everything but shopping on eBay, and GIVE US SOME GUARANTEES THAT OUR FREEDOMS WILL BE PROTECTED!
If the US Government wants our aid, they need to make efforts to indicate their good faith towards us. And they have a LOT of catching up to do.
I'll be the biggest patriot you've ever seen when the Liberty this country is supposed to stand for is restored to me. It is Liberty that makes the country great, not the fact that it happens to be (out of some random chance) where I was born, live, and work.
In the grand tradition of governments and hackers as usual. They do everything they can to criminalize us and demonize us, and now they want our help. Will they reward us the same way the British government rewarded Alan Turing, by "treating" his homosexuality "disease?"
If you're a hacker, my suggestion to you is that you don't just help out of the goodness of your heart. Fair is fair: Demand just compensation, in the form of pro-hacker legislation and ditching the DMCA and the laws that are currently on the table. If they want hacker help, they're going to have to change the laws to be more hacker friendly.
It's that simple, folks. If they don't support you, you don't support them. If the USA really wants hackers to help them, the first thing the USA can do is to help the hackers.
That does mitigate the news somewhat, but it's still bad news for AMD. Most people buy computers through large pre-built companies like Gateway and Dell, so losing a major OEM is going to hurt AMD's bottom line.
But this isn't the first fishy thing I've heard about how Gateway's running their business in the past year. It does seem suspicious that they would cut their more value-oriented lines right when those are what people are more likely to buy.
if freedom is something that we have to proactively go after, then WHY THE F**K cant the people setup to be representatives go after the peoples opinion.
The answer is obvious, and was well-known by the Founding Fathers of our country: Because power corrupts. Among the other philosophers, the founders of the USA were fans of Thomas Hobbes, who had a dim view of human nature.
This is why "the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance" (Jefferson). Freedom in life always implies responsibility. And in this country, the individual freedoms we enjoy demand individual responsibility to ensure that those freedoms are defended, and not just through voting once every two or four years.
It's just like when you first move away from home and discover that no one will do your laundry and cleaning for you. When you live in a democracy someone WILL make policy for you -- but if you don't get involved, expect it to be a policy you don't like.
"Democracy is not a spectator sport" is kinda funny. It made me smile the first time I read it.
Cash is private. I won't get new types of junk mail when I pay cash.
Cash is convenient. If I sell my CD's at a party or a gig, I don't have to bring a card-swiper with me just to process the transaction.
Cash is direct. I give the money to the person I want to have it, and I know that person will get it. I want the big tip to go to my waiter, who kept my coffee mug full for the past three hours while I was studying, without the money going into a pool that's shared with the guy who forgot half his table's order.
Cash is real. I can't spend cash I don't have.
Credit cards have great value for the obvious reasons. But they don't replace all of the functions paper notes and coins provide.
Boy, ain't that the truth.
Car stereos are expensive enough as it is. A head unit is only part of the cost if you want decent sound; you also have to look into new speakers, plus installation cost (or a weekend if you do it yourself).
I worked for a telecom company that had the same problem; they spared no expense ensuring they had the finest possible product. The problem was that they then had to push that cost onto customers and finance building the product. They just had their second round of layoffs, and are down to a third of the size they were at a year ago.
I don't see why this is bad news. Of course, you should expect it to be a great product for $1k, but for most users, why spend $1k when you can get a $200 MP3 CD unit? Heck, you can get a portable MP3 CD player and a cassette-deck adapter for less than $100. MP3 sound quality isn't anything to shout about, so why not?
I don't think your comments about folks who buy cars is really relevant, though. I'm old enough to buy a car and I sure as heck know how to do the MP3 thing. Even guys in Marketing here at work listen to their huge libraries of encoded MP3's while they type up reports.
But the real issue is, as you say, that you don't really get $800 worth of extra value out of the $800 extra you spend on one of these. You can do the same thing with a handful of MP3 CD's, which are more convenient to handle and cheap as dirt.
Democracy is not a spectator sport. We have to get involved. Who do we write to? Who do we call? Who can we contact to see that this doesn't stand?
You have the order wrong. You give them jewelry, THEN television, THEN McDonald's...but only after having first giving them Food, Clothing, and Shelter. (Those can be given all at once.)
First, take care of basic needs. For this, they will be thankful, and begin to trust you. Once they are accustomed to being fed, clothed, and sheltered, THEN you start giving them nicer things, like jewelry. Simple things at first. A necklace here, a watch there.
But take your time. The truth is, they will ask for these things -- baubles and trinkets, then technology, then full-scale commercialism -- by themselves, over a period of many years. Children especially are vulnerable; once introduced to new things, they don't reject them or let them go. They don't understand why they ought to reject them.
True franchise-based business opportunities may not open for a whole generation. But by that time, the terrorists will be too late. The freedom and prosperity Americans take for granted will be fully integrated into their lifestyle along with Islam.
I was only kidding with the McD's comment.
I was serious with the rest of it.
Okay...you're right, maybe McDonald's isn't such a wonderful idea. It's a better idea than a Mickey D's in India, though. :)
I probably should have put more emphasis on making life better for their women -- letting women be educated, wear normal clothes, leave the freaking house...
Don't forget that, as the LA Times article points out, these people do not yearn for worldly goods so the lure of (comparitive) luxury and posessions is of no value.
That's easy for one who has no luxury or posessions to say; give them comfort and security, and they will find it much harder to fight.
Perhaps the best thing that any military action can be is highly adaptive and reactive to whatever it finds. That's something that I don't know the US (or any Western) military is adequately structured to cope with.
Amen. We can't have Generals and Admirals who expect the war to be fought on their terms, and this has been a problem in the US military for a while.
First, give their women a better lot in life.
Gain territory. Then make the territory safe. Then give the people within that territory everything their hearts desire. Food. Clothing. Shelter. Jewelry. Television. McDonald's.
Build them a beautiful mosque. Allow them to pray. Give them a world where they need not fear, where they are defended by the United States military.
When the Taliban tries to assert itself, it will find itself against its own population, who will have found the security and freedom we Americans usually tend to take for granted, and will sacrifice all to defend.
You'll have difficulty keeping the defectors to your side out -- just as the USA today has difficulty accepting everyone who wants to immigrate here.
You win by conquering the way Rome did. You make the conquered territory more blessed than your opponents' territory.
Those few who infiltrate will grow accustomed to the softness of the new lifestyle, and be unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to fight their cause.
You ask them what they want, and then give them more than they asked for.
He just posted to Slashdot, didn't he?
That's complaining to an awful lot of people right there!
They also have Elmer Fudd, Pig Latin, and Esperanto. :)