Actually, there is a valid reason for this (believe it or not). There are laws pertaining to exactly how many minutes of ads channels can show per hour. They tend to get fined severely if they cross these set time limits by even 10 seconds. However, the law also makes a distinction between viewing times: such that they basically can show more ads after 9:30 at night.
I disagree to an extent. First, I believe that is (or was) for broadcast TV only, channels that use publically provided airways not cable only channels. Secondly, was that a 'law' or was that a restriction in place that was 'agreed to' and required to retain NAB or similar membership? I think any regulation came under pressure when the FCC attempted to block some of the UHF channels that were purchased by some of the shopping channels and used 24X7 for 'commercial selling' and the use of infomercials which were full 1/2 of full hour commercials. I don't think they got anywhere. I believe the only thing they were able to do was, on the over air channels, still require the station id every so many minutes, some minimum childrens and public service programming, all of which, I believe, ARE based on regulation.
Give me a break. Next they'll ban remote controls that let you turn the sound off during ads.
If he thinks I have a contract to watch the ads, then he also had a contract: (1) to go back to just showing about 2 minutes of spots every 15 minutes instead of making them every 7 or 8 minutes and taking more than 1/2 of the time; (2) to not have my volume blasted when an ad comes on.
I signed no contract with him or anyone else to watch commercials. But I do question that all seem to put commercials on the same time. Is that collusion between networks???
"Anyone else involved with the decision to substitute a PC network for an AS400 for critical data should be killed and then eaten to prevent them from being revived."
I'm up for that. Let's take it to Kitchen Stadium. How will the Iron Chef create a brilliant meal from the flesh of municipal IT morons? One thing is for sure: it'll involve either foie gras or caviar.
I would agree. Somehow I have a feeling 'off site storage' and 'disaster recovery plan' aren't in their procedures either. As for the chef, I think it'd more likely be a sauce. The French were good at developing sauces to improve the meal when starting with less than quality cuts, and I think this group fits in that clasification, IMHO.
Microsoft gains nothing by attacking free software, they should either ignore it or somehow adopt it,...
They don't gain, but IMHO, it's fear that's showing through. They can't operate in their normal way to deal with potential competition from GPL; it can't be 'bought out', it's not 'windows' in most cases, so they can't write it and give it away to crush any competition, so they attack it verbally as being communistic to anti-American to bad for business and government.
I don't think they'll take the 'ignore' suggestion, since they see it growing, particularly in server areas. The 'adopt' probably doesn't work either as I don't see them being involved in anything where they don't have total control, which with anything GPL, they don't.
However I wonder if there's a potential for liability if 911/emergency services dont work?
It will probably be promoted like some of the initial cable VoIP services were in that it's called good for a 'second phone line' but they recommend you retain the personal residential line. IIRC, there were two reasons for this. 1) 911 didn't work and 2) phone service wasn't available during power outages.
Too bad, because I used to like AMD. That was before Jerry Sanders started whore'ing the company around.....
I think it's worse than whore'ing the company. I cannot for the life of me understand ANYBODY, let alone Sanders in his position, submiting written testimony, under oath, stating it in fact, without any attempt to see if what he was saying was true. It sounds like MS has 'em all by the short ones. It makes Sanders, IMHO, look like a total fool. It'd seem to me it doesn't put Gates in too good of a light either. I have to believe the states just loved this guy. (And IANAL applies, but shouldn't the Court just toss his entire testimony? He's providing expert testimony, but he's admited it's all heresay, simply saying what he was told by Gates, and without any verification or even reading the states proposed settlement to know what he is even testifying against. If they want Gates opinion, shouldn't MS be forced to put HIM on the stand? )
"AMD Takes Microsoft's Side in Antitrust Case" is a long damned streatch from them/CEO being opposed to the "remedy being persued by the states". Your comment was inflamatory and hurt AMD without cause. If they come out and say "M$ is our bestest buddies and they didn't do nothing wrong." then you might have a point, but they didn't do that. That was a GD troll CT and you know it.
If that was a troll, then the entire AMD testimony seems to be a troll as well. The 'many versions of windows and problems with hardware' doesn't fly. They're talking about (a) a single stripped down version to allow oem's and users to add competitive software. (b) The settlement is based on promoting competition of middleware, not the base system. Middleware generally doesn't interact directly with hardware. (c) Software that does interact, such as drivers, wouldn't be any different since the full vs. stripped down Windows would be the same in the hardware interfaces.
The 'testimony' seems like a parody of the same MS statements. And the comment on competition and scalable servers on x86 platforms? MS has workever very hard to insure there isn't competition at the server platform using proprietary standards and attempting to force that servers be MS to work with clients using windows. That statement practically works to the benefit of the states. (And as noted, he does fail to mention the only solutions that are making a dent in server deployment on x86, Linux&BSD systems, not at all the 'proprietary microprocessors' he mentions.) I wonder how AMD would react if MS changed their licensing agreements to permit Windows to run ONLY on Intel chips. Hmm.
These people still have to battle for basic survival , but they're being exploited in all possible ways by the UK, Japan and even the US. They pay more for their mobile calls or internet access than most other countries.And like the article say: Usually the costs get shared between connecting telco companies, but that is not the case there. That is really terrible.
Let's at least be a little realistic. The whole thing is a non-starter. I first had a whole page rebutting this lunacy. But take just a couple points
* shared cost is relative. In voice, many of these countries still have huge termination fees, retaining the vast majority of the cost/minute for calls. That's not 'shared', that's subsidization or as exhorbitant as those charges have been over the years, more like rape.
* If they want shared costs, make it truly shared. The sender of a web request sends a few bytes, the response from the web server sends kilobytes. If they want equality, it should work both ways. Every web site server should receive payment based on bytes went to the requesting party for their content. Absurd? Totally against the principle of the internet? It's no different than what they're requesting. If they want paid for data sent to them based on volume, then they should also pay for 'content' received, based on volume.
* Their mobile calls cost more? Guess what. They have fewer users per infractructure deployed, be it towers, transmitters, etc. If that charges are realistic, it obviously costs more per user to support the infrastructure. And how on earth do mobile calls fit into US or UK. Once it's to the landlines, it's a call, period. They're not setting the rates, the local telco or gov't monopoly is setting the mobile rates. That isn't econ 101 as someone points out. That's econ -999999999. Sheesh.
Very true. Interestingly their own stats seem to show it's the impact of the recession, saying that England, one of the few places not impacted by it, saw sales rise. There were earlier statements in other places where they said that CD sales were down for the first time since a drop that had occured 10 yrs ago. Guess what. That was a recession too. It sure goes to prove, anybody can take stats and make them say what they want. I'd guess they'd say the drop in sales 10 yrs ago due to ? (Guess they'd better think up a new excuse.) In my case, my purchases of CD's are down to nil. Not the recession, and I've never had napster or other file sharing on my computers. I simply won't pay obscene prices to buy what I consider crap. (Though someone's study could as easily, and rightfully so, indicate that a small n %age drop in prices would spur a n% increase in sales. Did they ever consider the raping of the customer to be one reason they don't sell as well?
The Patent clame is only for a swing attached by 2 chanes to a tree.
So any one swinning on a metal framed swing, or a swing with more than 2 chaines, or a conection mecanism not comprising of a chain, will not be effected by this patent
However, I swung from a swing connected to a branch of a tree, originally connected with rope, later replaced by chain. This was done at my uncle's and I can claim prior are minimally back to the mid 1950's (that's the earliest I can remember being out at their place on the swing).
What gets me is that this thing could even go through the patent process. Are the ones reviewing them so sheltered in their lives they never sat on a swing as a kid and went sideways? Even on a regular swing set with multiple swings it was done, one just ran into the swing next to it, but who cared. It also shows the lunacy of those who'd even attempt such a filing. There should be a 'frivilous filing' fine as there can be for frivilous legal suits.
While it's not perfect, I think one reason the founding fathers insured we had a Constitution was to protect us from ideas like those forthcoming from Mr. Ellison. They made it trump all, less than easy to change, and instituted a federal court system and Supreme Court that can't be easily replaced to allow the whims of a single person or even masses overnight.
Mr. Ellison is listened to because he as a lot of money, mainly. IMHO, however, the man wears blinders, isn't concerned about minor things like the Constitution, and doesn't seem to bother to take into consideration existing problems with that's out there when wanting to roll over everything. I have no opinion as to whether it's his nature or his money that gives him this nature, or if he's spent too much time in his oriental surroundings, I'll leave that for others to decide.
But some things are troubling. He points out the huge databases that already exist. What he fails to also acknowledge are the problems. Forget about the 'mall experience'; but when, for example, credit data is incorrect in a database, it can take years to straighten out. It took Congress to act to even get the companies maintaining them to act even in a less than timely manner. Identity theft is greatly on the rise; again becuase of the existing databases and through theft of information, people can 'take over' another person's identity. It takes, IIRC, years for people to get that straightened out. That generally doesn't, though it can and HAS, get people tossed in jail. Mr. Ellison wants a single federal database of everyone with it's likely error rate to equal or exceed the individual databases that already exist? Now instead of a credit problem, people could be subject to being tossed in jail as suspected terrorists.
Actually, as far as protection of data or at least access, I'd give the FBI higher marks historically than the private sector. My only experience dates back many years at the advent of the NCIC, but the FBI had some very strict (and followed up on) procedures on connecting to it, who had access, logging data, etc). At that point, it was mainly a repository for things like stolen boats, airplanes, etc. Criminal history databases didn't exists, and I don't think warrants and other data was kept on there, certainly not centrally from states. But they had good controls becuase it WAS limited in who accessed it and what went on it. Even then, there were errors and problems with some who'd access the data. Mr. Ellison's gandiose plans would obviously make control of both access, updating information, and accuracy a nightmare. Identify theft wouldn't necessarily be any harder, as there'd still be corrupt people to sell false ID's just like the terrorists who purchased false drivers licenese data; it might only cost them more. Had it existed prior to 9/11, it wouldn't have prevented anything; since most were here legally, it seems. Would they have been prevented to board a flight becuase they had a speeding ticket in some other state? Probably not. Though if so, then a LOT of people are going to be missing flights.
Also, as one amasses huge amounts of data, the accuracy goes down and there's nobody to really analyze it. It all becomes automated. If that leads to profiling the entire country, it becomes another nightmare. And based on what? and by whom? The courts have shot down some profiling methodolgy, and undoubtedly would others. Even with existing data we had, the INS seems a mess, unable to control data and process what it already has. So adding millions and millions more pieces of data is going to improve that?
I think the BIG downfall and the area that needs to be upgraded are the areas that the gov't thought they were going to do with techonology or were afraid to do for public opinion. AS others thought the USA still had 'war fright' and wouldn't potentially react as it did to 9/11 or for that matter the Gulf War, they found out wrong. But the other area that was shackled upwards of 30+? years ago was the intelligence community, CIA for example. They got bad press, people compained we actually had 'spies', technology was improving, and even gov't types revolted aginst them. Were there problems? Sure. Mr. Hoover destroyed the perceived integrity of the FBI for years. But the gov't also pretty much wiped out foreign intelligence too. We ended up with satellites and pictures of everyplace on earth, probably damn good pics, but we didn't have agents to hear what those were saying or plotting that we had pictures of from miles up in space. If we dont' go back to the practice of infiltrating foreign groups that are a threat to us, we'll probably only learn of acts after they occur instead of preventing some of them. I think we're probably doing a lot more than previously, but maybe that's where we should be putting our resources and support. I don't blame the CIA for 9/11, but I have a hunch, strictly an opinion, some of those in gov't who highly criticized those agencies for 9/11 are the same ones who voted to tightly restrict them many years ago.
Before we listen to someone like Mr. Ellison and destroy much of what the founding father's wrote, let's take the things that we already have and 'fix' the problems that exist, and go back to obtining accurate intelligence, having the right people to analyze it, and keeping those that are going to be the terrorists and keep them out before they even have a chance to end up in any 'national database' that Mr. Ellison so highly values. (along with the revenue. The article did mention he'd give the gov't the software. It also said they'd pay for upgrades and maintenance in the future. I guess that'd give Mr. Ellison even more money and connections in case any data was ever wrong in HIS profile. Though that doesn't solve the years other people would have fixing problems with errors on them in his database as they couldn't call their lawyers at 3am or their local congreeman or senator or president to get an appointment 10 minutes later.)
Re:In places where Internet is still expensive
on
XP, Phone Home
·
· Score: 2
In the USA, Internet access is usually a monthly subscription and that's it. No phone charges, no charge per minute, just a certain amount of bandwidth per dollar spent.
Generally, but NOT necessarily true. ISDN is a good example which others mention. Also, some places like New York City have message units on residential service. Keep making more calls and you pay more $$. And the small business user that uses ISDN or dial-up service? They are on message unit type services in many more places where flat rate service is available for residential service but not business service.
First, although I've no idea where to look for numbers, but it seems to me you're leaving OEM sales completely out of the equation. So long as new hardware is purchased, Microsoft will continue earning a pretty substantial piece of the pie, even if upgrades drop off to some extent.
I agree and disagree. They will get the fees from about every PC sold. However, unless the economy comes back gangbusters, it won't be like before. MS, in terms of other long established companies, it still a young company. It's not been through a very slow economy or recession on the current terms. The only prior recession in it's history was the early 90's. At that point, the PC was still not the commodity business and it wasn't as saturated in the market as now. At this point, the retailers for consumers get the high end leading edge type and those, as they lower price points, who still don't have the PC or the second PC in the house. As they sell the lower end PC's they don't sell the additional packages. Companies have also stepped back from replacements as much. Win95 got many to replace as well as the fact that at that point PC's were still coming down in price rapidly. Companies sould still reduce budgets while at the same time replace large amounts of hardware/software. Prices leveled off in the 90's so now replacements in large numbers, with all the additional business software like Office, require increased budgets. They don't want to do that now. That's particularly clear as business dealt a blow to the MS subscription plan for businesses.
Lastly, the supposed consumer distrust.
I think the consumer mistrust has expanded a bit from just the geek mistrust of them. But it's businesses that come to play here, not the general consumer. The mistrust before and concerns on software was generally just the IT arena. When security problems and virus' started costing a LOT of $$ and/or downtime, it went to the front of the office and was much more visible, no longer just being a minor glitch. Secondly, with Hailstorm, MS ran against a new situation for them. With OEM hardware, they control by licensing agreements and the OEM knowing if they don't play ball, they'll pay more or not have Windows to sell. With product, MS has the edge and perception of saying, IMHO, 'agree with us, sell out to us, or we'll develop our own and you're probably toast'. They maintained control. But for Hailstorm, they needed the big business partners. The American Express and Citibank types. They are HUGE. They have their own interests. MS can't buy them out, and even MS doesn't have the $$ to start a new business to displace them. They also have competition, their own databases, brand recognition, brand loyalty, and have always had THEIR total control over their assets. To ask them to have everyone they interact with in a MS database, the same database what would be used to store data from their own competitors is asking a LOT. The companies no longer have control; if there's a security failure or glitch, they are probably blamed vs. MS; and they probably don't like the potential of their customer database demographics potentially being sold for advertising to a competitor. Why should a Citibank ask their customers to be in a database, even if totally trusted, that's also partnered with a BankAmerica or Wells Fargo. It doesn't and never did make sense to me.
So again, I ask: Why stay? 65% of prevailing wages, with worthless options, sounds like total crap to me
We don't know that the options ARE worthless. Granted the stock has been pretty stagnant and certainly isn't the 120 or so it was a few years ago. On the other hand, we don't know the pricing of the options. (Some correct me if I'm wrong as IANAWSA - I am not a Wall Street Analyst) I believe if the price of the options were changed, we'd know about it as it'd have to be reported in the financials. However, I believe they can exchange options with a lower price without reporting that. In that case, the people would still be doing fairly well. Also, MS, as with other companies, knows that this is a down market, recession and all. Even if they're not getting the full gain they'd have gotten some time ago with a continually appreciating stock price, they certainly know (and MS is aware) this is also probably not the best time to try and jump ship. I'm sure they all know enough.com types are still jobless. If they've got a stable job, they are probably going to stay there unless the economy increases even more than the few percent predicted for a slow recovery.
Re:Wireless Monitor? Not happening...
on
Wireless Monitors?
·
· Score: 2
Agreed. It appears they've simply come up with another name for marketing a stripped down network pc.
To get a strong behaviour remedy, you need to provde harm to consumers in a tangible way. The DOJ smartly noticed that before their illegal actions you had to pay for browsers. Now you dont. How can you prove harm to the consumers? You can't. That leaves only one thing to do: try to restore competition and allow OEMs to choose other vendors. That has been done by this agreement.
IANAL, but inclined to disagree with that comment. 'Harm' can come to consumers even if they initially benefit, ie, free browsers (which in itself can be contested by saying that the inclusion of IE is priced into the base product, one can't determine it continues to be 'free'). The breakup of Standard Oil was done because of the monopoly and practices used to destroy competition. Before they started driving competition out of business, consumers paid more. WHILE it was occuring, consumers actually benefited, since Standard underpriced all the competition by selling at a loss, the intent to put them out of business, which forced cheaper prices to all consumers at the time by both Standard AND the competition. The problem, and conclusion, was that once the competition was driven out of business, the consumers were harmed because without competition there was no compelling reason for pricing to the consumer to be reasonable and they rose to levels harming the consumer. Harm to the consumer, it would seem, therefore does not have to be determined DURING the illegal practices, and can even benefit the consumer while the practices are in place. (And if the MS browser, is indeed, determined to be 'free', one has to assume MS is 'selling' it at a loss since they didn't exactly develop it without cost. After all, it wasn't a one time 'sale' to get market share.)
Let me clear this up for you: The fire caused the fall of the towers. The fire was started by jet fuel. But the jet fuel ran out just minutes after the crash. After that, the fire that was still burning heated up the structure and caused the collapse. The chain of events was like this: Fuel fire -> ordinary fire -> collapse.
I would tend to disagree, particularly to the phrase 'ordinary' fire. The jet fuel, even though burned off rapidly, was the catalyst to a catostraphic and intense fire vs. an 'ordinary' fire. An experiement (and I'm not suggesting you do this) is take two equal piles of trash/wood. Start one with a match, douse the other with kerosene, and light. The second one with the ignited kerosene will have a much more intense and energy producing blaze because the fire was started with a higher heat and over a much larger surface area. It will burn out sooner, but during the time it's buring, it will produce much more intense heat vs. a 'normal fire' allowed to spread at its own rate.
When a company's own director is denied access to financial records of his own company! Though not an admission of wrongdoing, it does raise some serious issues on how ICANN is run. One question, was this director already aware of any wrongdoing, or just checking some facts out?
A Board of Directors has a fiduciary responsibility to the Corporation. Anyone in management who attempts to withhold access from a Board member should be subject to immediate termination. I'd love to see how the insurer carrying their D&O policy would react to this type of activity. It seems, being non-profit under 501(c)3, it's even more paramount for the board member to insure the finances are in order. It sound like management doesn't realize they are employed BY the Board, and that goes for their legal team as well. (It's interesting to note someone mentioned a law firm receiving a substantial portion of the expenses. Check the 'contributions exceedind 5,000.00' in their financial statements)
mportant question to your collective attention: "Our (technically savvy) lawyer has advised my company that 'incidental resources' do not a work derive. For example: If I have a student's version of a development environment whose license does not allow me to distribute code compiled with it for commercial use, I am legally allowed to use the environment to create my ANSI C++ code, which, when I compile it with GCC, I am free to use to whatever commercial end I like. This seems fairly intuitive. (After all, you could have written the same thing in a text editor, and the debugging, etc, that you need the IDE for doesn't actually 'show up' in the final code). Here's the kicker: My company wants to translate this to an abuse of the GPL and has been advised 'full speed ahead!'"
Standard IANAL disclaimer. But I wouldn't necessarily agree with the 'this seems fairly intuitive' and I'd want to check with another lawyer or two. I would agree that 'incidental' might accurately be used if, for example, while a student with the student development package, you have code generated and later, in a commercial environment, found use for a piece of that code in one of your projects. However, something doesn't seem 'incidental' if one continues to use the student development package on a continual basis to generate code for a commercial environment and simply exclude the actual compliation by the package in order to evade licensing agreements. It seems if done continually, it might not look so 'incidental'. This would particularly be true, if, IMHO, one DID use the integrated package to compile throughout development and debugging and only, when it comes time to commercially distribute, the process is changed to compile outside the package. I'd just buy the package for commercial use. Even IF one was sued and won, they'd likely pay more in legal fees than they'd have paid for the package in the first place.
Using the hypothesis to code released being obfuscated for source distribution, when not the source used for development but only at time of distribution, would also likely seem to be the same intent, to nullify the intent and spirit of the GPL. It wouldn't be the code used for development, debugging, and distribution of the commercial product, but only to attempt to circumvent the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPL.
I think with the above, I'd be looking for another job. I personally would have trouble working for a company that takes such steps. Even if you don't have a problem with their thinking, remember, if they'll do it with software, they'll do it with their employees. Besides, I'd rather be able to sleep at night.
For example, slashdot would have a hard time going pay, but, say if all andover's websites went to a subscrption, costing $2/month for unlimited access for everhting, they would probably fill a few pockets
I think you hit the nail on the head, or to expand it, that pay won't work until there's some reasonable billing scheme that's acceptable to a large mass of users from a significant %-age of sites and when a reasonable and workable payment system evolves. At this point, I think a paid slashdot would fail for the reason I think satellite radio in it's current setting will fail to obtain necessary mass to become financially successful. Satellite radio wants users, but charge..say 10.00/month per radio. Yet to get gain dependancy on it, you need to cover the car radio, other cars one might have, radio connected to the home stereo, maybe a portable. Now you've taken that to 50.00 - 60.00 / month. There's no billing to make the dependancy gain a foothold as I don't see people paying 60.00/month for radio. Web sites are the same. While one may want to charge 4.95/month and think 'people can pay that', it will go out the window, even with users initially subscribing, once others follow suit and users begin to see they'd be spending 50-100/month just for the sites they regularly visit. Other than a few specialized areas, sports and maybe financials, that probably isn't going to float. It probably works only when a mass collection of sites can be offered at that price (meaning that 4.95 is way out of line for a single site), or mass access through guaranteed bandwidth to a high %-age of sites is available so the bandwidth freight is compensated for by users vs. site operator. The billing/payment needs to be an entity that can collect and disburse for a host of sites. And no, I don't think.NET is the answer. There needs to be multiple vendors capable of providing the same type of billing/payment service letting users pick based on pricing and service. That also gets the full overhead off the individual sites and means little has to be added for the back office type operation of a site that charges. (meaning.30-.40/month can cover operations with sufficient users vs. 4.95 which can't because they can't get enough people to subscribe)
I'm not sure I would define this as a consequence of being greedy (although I'm sure they are). Their problem is that the primary source of revenue is being threatened. It's not just a matter of making a little less money. It's more like making a whole lot less money if PVRs become as popular as VCRs.
I think somebody mentioned down below that these corporations need to evolve. It's time to find other sources of revenue. If their only salable "product" is airtime for advertisements, they're in real trouble. Every business that I know that stuck with a single product has gone down the tubes.
These are the same folks who anticipate using the free digital channels they were given to provide revenue by forgoing HDTV in many cases, and using the additional space for revenue data type services.
But the 'illegal' to copy using keywords like titles, authors... it sound more like a slap suit than copyright suit, and someone should slap back. I'd love to see them site case law on that one. It'd be like the publishers going back to the Supremes and asking to revisit the Xerox case because instead of copying a page at a copier, one can now use search engines by keyword to get that page you want for your book report or thesis and then print it on the printer. That's an exact analogy to the theory they're using.
I'd say if we ever go back to the stone age, it won't be through nuclear war as was once thought, but it'll be due to the RIAA, MPAA, Valenti (who's from that age anyway). This is all about control, and trying to get back what they lost in the Betamax case. They should get censured for filing a frivilous suit on that keyword thing, and then go from there. (standard IANAL disclaimer. I actually was prelaw, but decided early after meeting some real jerks, it wasn't for me. I see many are still practicing.)
"If the user elects not to update the security component, he or she will be unable to play content protected by our DRM from that point forward, although content previously obtained would still be usable."
Something is confusing here. If one doesn't update their DRM, it says you cannot play any newly downloaded material. That seems to define one of two things. Either EVERY distributer of media for WMP must upgrade to always be current (or the existing DRM Should play from any source which hasn't upgraded)
-OR-
Windows and their Media player require a connection to a microsoft type site which is verified at every point prior to a download. This seems more likely, as in a.NET strategy.
Now THAT sounds absurd. Let's see.. wasn't the Billy Gates 'trustworthy computing' memo something about privacy and security. That's going to be great privacy when they track everything you obtain via WMP, and probably send you ads based on what you download. Real nice. What crap. They'd better state that very very plainly up front if that's the case.
The interesting part becomes the vendor of the media. If one has a subscription service? They'll have to put in as part of the subscription that you MUST activate that automatic upgrade, or you will have services paid for but not available. This is going to get very very messy from the vendor standpoint, not just the consumer. Real Networks certainly has something to take advantage here if they play their cards right. I know too many places that'd never permit any type of automatic downloads for anything.
What's that old cliche`..what's good for the goose is good for the danger?
I find it interesting MS is going so far as to be saying they're being discriminated against by comments made about Microsoft.
Wasn't it fairly recently Ballmer and those of his ilk in the MS empire were saying Linux / open software was 'unamerican' and 'communist'?? They oviously don't mind criticizing when they're playing hardball or violating antitrust laws but if they're on the end of the comments, they're so offended and being discriminated against.
Speaking of anti-trust laws. Though convicted, have they yet said 'gee, guess we did it.' or so much as 'sorry'. I don't believe they yet acknowledge it, even to themselves. Guess that's why I have little use for them.
For the viewer there would probably be no noticeable difference unless you closely examined the whole unedited program all the way through beforehand.. but for the big companies selling their shows it seems like it could be another chance to sue someone and get some extra spending money.
I disagree. How would I notice it? The yet another $#@@#$@# commercial. That's why we hardly watch programming, other than news, etc, on broadcast/cable anymore anyway. When it gets bad enough, particularly on cable channels, that the commercials are coming up every 7-8 minutes or so max, there's little continuity left in watching a program... it's no longer worth it.
I sent similar feedback in response to an email from RedHat, with the same $5 / month idea. As you said, I have a feeling quite a few others had the same thoughts.
I usually buy a packaged version when it comes out, it keeps me current, gives a little back to RedHat, and gives me the n days of support. But only one machine. With 2 at home (as I figure many have with one 'user' machine and a firewall) I could use RedHat Network for updating, but I had to keep switching machines in order to use up2date. For me, the $5 / month is worth the time savings in using up2date vs. doing the individual downloads of each fix. As someone else said, guess I'll now have to step up to the plate and pay it:)
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree to an extent. First, I believe that is (or was) for broadcast TV only, channels that use publically provided airways not cable only channels. Secondly, was that a 'law' or was that a restriction in place that was 'agreed to' and required to retain NAB or similar membership? I think any regulation came under pressure when the FCC attempted to block some of the UHF channels that were purchased by some of the shopping channels and used 24X7 for 'commercial selling' and the use of infomercials which were full 1/2 of full hour commercials. I don't think they got anywhere. I believe the only thing they were able to do was, on the over air channels, still require the station id every so many minutes, some minimum childrens and public service programming, all of which, I believe, ARE based on regulation.
If he thinks I have a contract to watch the ads, then he also had a contract: (1) to go back to just showing about 2 minutes of spots every 15 minutes instead of making them every 7 or 8 minutes and taking more than 1/2 of the time; (2) to not have my volume blasted when an ad comes on.
I signed no contract with him or anyone else to watch commercials. But I do question that all seem to put commercials on the same time. Is that collusion between networks???
I'm up for that. Let's take it to Kitchen Stadium. How will the Iron Chef create a brilliant meal from the flesh of municipal IT morons? One thing is for sure: it'll involve either foie gras or caviar.
I would agree. Somehow I have a feeling 'off site storage' and 'disaster recovery plan' aren't in their procedures either. As for the chef, I think it'd more likely be a sauce. The French were good at developing sauces to improve the meal when starting with less than quality cuts, and I think this group fits in that clasification, IMHO.
They don't gain, but IMHO, it's fear that's showing through. They can't operate in their normal way to deal with potential competition from GPL; it can't be 'bought out', it's not 'windows' in most cases, so they can't write it and give it away to crush any competition, so they attack it verbally as being communistic to anti-American to bad for business and government.
I don't think they'll take the 'ignore' suggestion, since they see it growing, particularly in server areas. The 'adopt' probably doesn't work either as I don't see them being involved in anything where they don't have total control, which with anything GPL, they don't.
It will probably be promoted like some of the initial cable VoIP services were in that it's called good for a 'second phone line' but they recommend you retain the personal residential line. IIRC, there were two reasons for this. 1) 911 didn't work and 2) phone service wasn't available during power outages.
I think it's worse than whore'ing the company. I cannot for the life of me understand ANYBODY, let alone Sanders in his position, submiting written testimony, under oath, stating it in fact, without any attempt to see if what he was saying was true. It sounds like MS has 'em all by the short ones. It makes Sanders, IMHO, look like a total fool. It'd seem to me it doesn't put Gates in too good of a light either. I have to believe the states just loved this guy. (And IANAL applies, but shouldn't the Court just toss his entire testimony? He's providing expert testimony, but he's admited it's all heresay, simply saying what he was told by Gates, and without any verification or even reading the states proposed settlement to know what he is even testifying against. If they want Gates opinion, shouldn't MS be forced to put HIM on the stand? )
If that was a troll, then the entire AMD testimony seems to be a troll as well.
The 'many versions of windows and problems with hardware' doesn't fly. They're talking about (a) a single stripped down version to allow oem's and users to add competitive software. (b) The settlement is based on promoting competition of middleware, not the base system. Middleware generally doesn't interact directly with hardware. (c) Software that does interact, such as drivers, wouldn't be any different since the full vs. stripped down Windows would be the same in the hardware interfaces.
The 'testimony' seems like a parody of the same MS statements. And the comment on competition and scalable servers on x86 platforms? MS has workever very hard to insure there isn't competition at the server platform using proprietary standards and attempting to force that servers be MS to work with clients using windows. That statement practically works to the benefit of the states. (And as noted, he does fail to mention the only solutions that are making a dent in server deployment on x86, Linux&BSD systems, not at all the 'proprietary microprocessors' he mentions.) I wonder how AMD would react if MS changed their licensing agreements to permit Windows to run ONLY on Intel chips. Hmm.
Let's at least be a little realistic. The whole thing is a non-starter. I first had a whole page rebutting this lunacy. But take just a couple points
* shared cost is relative. In voice, many of these countries still have huge termination fees, retaining the vast majority of the cost/minute for calls. That's not 'shared', that's subsidization or as exhorbitant as those charges have been over the years, more like rape.
* If they want shared costs, make it truly shared. The sender of a web request sends a few bytes, the response from the web server sends kilobytes. If they want equality, it should work both ways. Every web site server should receive payment based on bytes went to the requesting party for their content. Absurd? Totally against the principle of the internet? It's no different than what they're requesting. If they want paid for data sent to them based on volume, then they should also pay for 'content' received, based on volume.
* Their mobile calls cost more? Guess what. They have fewer users per infractructure deployed, be it towers, transmitters, etc. If that charges are realistic, it obviously costs more per user to support the infrastructure. And how on earth do mobile calls fit into US or UK. Once it's to the landlines, it's a call, period. They're not setting the rates, the local telco or gov't monopoly is setting the mobile rates. That isn't econ 101 as someone points out. That's econ -999999999. Sheesh.
RECESSION! RECESSION! RECESSION! RECESSION!"
Very true. Interestingly their own stats seem to show it's the impact of the recession, saying that England, one of the few places not impacted by it, saw sales rise. There were earlier statements in other places where they said that CD sales were down for the first time since a drop that had occured 10 yrs ago. Guess what. That was a recession too. It sure goes to prove, anybody can take stats and make them say what they want. I'd guess they'd say the drop in sales 10 yrs ago due to ? (Guess they'd better think up a new excuse.) In my case, my purchases of CD's are down to nil. Not the recession, and I've never had napster or other file sharing on my computers. I simply won't pay obscene prices to buy what I consider crap. (Though someone's study could as easily, and rightfully so, indicate that a small n %age drop in prices would spur a n% increase in sales. Did they ever consider the raping of the customer to be one reason they don't sell as well?
So any one swinning on a metal framed swing, or a swing with more than 2 chaines, or a conection mecanism not comprising of a chain, will not be effected by this patent
However, I swung from a swing connected to a branch of a tree, originally connected with rope, later replaced by chain. This was done at my uncle's and I can claim prior are minimally back to the mid 1950's (that's the earliest I can remember being out at their place on the swing).
What gets me is that this thing could even go through the patent process. Are the ones reviewing them so sheltered in their lives they never sat on a swing as a kid and went sideways? Even on a regular swing set with multiple swings it was done, one just ran into the swing next to it, but who cared. It also shows the lunacy of those who'd even attempt such a filing. There should be a 'frivilous filing' fine as there can be for frivilous legal suits.
While it's not perfect, I think one reason the founding fathers insured we had a Constitution was to protect us from ideas like those forthcoming from Mr. Ellison. They made it trump all, less than easy to change, and instituted a federal court system and Supreme Court that can't be easily replaced to allow the whims of a single person or even masses overnight.
Mr. Ellison is listened to because he as a lot of money, mainly. IMHO, however, the man wears blinders, isn't concerned about minor things like the Constitution, and doesn't seem to bother to take into consideration existing problems with that's out there when wanting to roll over everything. I have no opinion as to whether it's his nature or his money that gives him this nature, or if he's spent too much time in his oriental surroundings, I'll leave that for others to decide.
But some things are troubling. He points out the huge databases that already exist. What he fails to also acknowledge are the problems. Forget about the 'mall experience'; but when, for example, credit data is incorrect in a database, it can take years to straighten out. It took Congress to act to even get the companies maintaining them to act even in a less than timely manner. Identity theft is greatly on the rise; again becuase of the existing databases and through theft of information, people can 'take over' another person's identity. It takes, IIRC, years for people to get that straightened out. That generally doesn't, though it can and HAS, get people tossed in jail. Mr. Ellison wants a single federal database of everyone with it's likely error rate to equal or exceed the individual databases that already exist? Now instead of a credit problem, people could be subject to being tossed in jail as suspected terrorists.
Actually, as far as protection of data or at least access, I'd give the FBI higher marks historically than the private sector. My only experience dates back many years at the advent of the NCIC, but the FBI had some very strict (and followed up on) procedures on connecting to it, who had access, logging data, etc). At that point, it was mainly a repository for things like stolen boats, airplanes, etc. Criminal history databases didn't exists, and I don't think warrants and other data was kept on there, certainly not centrally from states. But they had good controls becuase it WAS limited in who accessed it and what went on it. Even then, there were errors and problems with some who'd access the data. Mr. Ellison's gandiose plans would obviously make control of both access, updating information, and accuracy a nightmare. Identify theft wouldn't necessarily be any harder, as there'd still be corrupt people to sell false ID's just like the terrorists who purchased false drivers licenese data; it might only cost them more. Had it existed prior to 9/11, it wouldn't have prevented anything; since most were here legally, it seems. Would they have been prevented to board a flight becuase they had a speeding ticket in some other state? Probably not. Though if so, then a LOT of people are going to be missing flights.
Also, as one amasses huge amounts of data, the accuracy goes down and there's nobody to really analyze it. It all becomes automated. If that leads to profiling the entire country, it becomes another nightmare. And based on what? and by whom? The courts have shot down some profiling methodolgy, and undoubtedly would others. Even with existing data we had, the INS seems a mess, unable to control data and process what it already has. So adding millions and millions more pieces of data is going to improve that?
I think the BIG downfall and the area that needs to be upgraded are the areas that the gov't thought they were going to do with techonology or were afraid to do for public opinion. AS others thought the USA still had 'war fright' and wouldn't potentially react as it did to 9/11 or for that matter the Gulf War, they found out wrong. But the other area that was shackled upwards of 30+? years ago was the intelligence community, CIA for example. They got bad press, people compained we actually had 'spies', technology was improving, and even gov't types revolted aginst them. Were there problems? Sure. Mr. Hoover destroyed the perceived integrity of the FBI for years. But the gov't also pretty much wiped out foreign intelligence too. We ended up with satellites and pictures of everyplace on earth, probably damn good pics, but we didn't have agents to hear what those were saying or plotting that we had pictures of from miles up in space. If we dont' go back to the practice of infiltrating foreign groups that are a threat to us, we'll probably only learn of acts after they occur instead of preventing some of them. I think we're probably doing a lot more than previously, but maybe that's where we should be putting our resources and support. I don't blame the CIA for 9/11, but I have a hunch, strictly an opinion, some of those in gov't who highly criticized those agencies for 9/11 are the same ones who voted to tightly restrict them many years ago.
Before we listen to someone like Mr. Ellison and destroy much of what the founding father's wrote, let's take the things that we already have and 'fix' the problems that exist, and go back to obtining accurate intelligence, having the right people to analyze it, and keeping those that are going to be the terrorists and keep them out before they even have a chance to end up in any 'national database' that Mr. Ellison so highly values. (along with the revenue. The article did mention he'd give the gov't the software. It also said they'd pay for upgrades and maintenance in the future. I guess that'd give Mr. Ellison even more money and connections in case any data was ever wrong in HIS profile. Though that doesn't solve the years other people would have fixing problems with errors on them in his database as they couldn't call their lawyers at 3am or their local congreeman or senator or president to get an appointment 10 minutes later.)
Generally, but NOT necessarily true. ISDN is a good example which others mention. Also, some places like New York City have message units on residential service. Keep making more calls and you pay more $$. And the small business user that uses ISDN or dial-up service? They are on message unit type services in many more places where flat rate service is available for residential service but not business service.
I agree and disagree. They will get the fees from about every PC sold. However, unless the economy comes back gangbusters, it won't be like before. MS, in terms of other long established companies, it still a young company. It's not been through a very slow economy or recession on the current terms. The only prior recession in it's history was the early 90's. At that point, the PC was still not the commodity business and it wasn't as saturated in the market as now. At this point, the retailers for consumers get the high end leading edge type and those, as they lower price points, who still don't have the PC or the second PC in the house. As they sell the lower end PC's they don't sell the additional packages. Companies have also stepped back from replacements as much. Win95 got many to replace as well as the fact that at that point PC's were still coming down in price rapidly. Companies sould still reduce budgets while at the same time replace large amounts of hardware/software. Prices leveled off in the 90's so now replacements in large numbers, with all the additional business software like Office, require increased budgets. They don't want to do that now. That's particularly clear as business dealt a blow to the MS subscription plan for businesses.
Lastly, the supposed consumer distrust.
I think the consumer mistrust has expanded a bit from just the geek mistrust of them. But it's businesses that come to play here, not the general consumer. The mistrust before and concerns on software was generally just the IT arena. When security problems and virus' started costing a LOT of $$ and/or downtime, it went to the front of the office and was much more visible, no longer just being a minor glitch. Secondly, with Hailstorm, MS ran against a new situation for them. With OEM hardware, they control by licensing agreements and the OEM knowing if they don't play ball, they'll pay more or not have Windows to sell. With product, MS has the edge and perception of saying, IMHO, 'agree with us, sell out to us, or we'll develop our own and you're probably toast'. They maintained control. But for Hailstorm, they needed the big business partners. The American Express and Citibank types. They are HUGE. They have their own interests. MS can't buy them out, and even MS doesn't have the $$ to start a new business to displace them. They also have competition, their own databases, brand recognition, brand loyalty, and have always had THEIR total control over their assets. To ask them to have everyone they interact with in a MS database, the same database what would be used to store data from their own competitors is asking a LOT. The companies no longer have control; if there's a security failure or glitch, they are probably blamed vs. MS; and they probably don't like the potential of their customer database demographics potentially being sold for advertising to a competitor. Why should a Citibank ask their customers to be in a database, even if totally trusted, that's also partnered with a BankAmerica or Wells Fargo. It doesn't and never did make sense to me.
We don't know that the options ARE worthless. Granted the stock has been pretty stagnant and certainly isn't the 120 or so it was a few years ago. On the other hand, we don't know the pricing of the options. (Some correct me if I'm wrong as IANAWSA - I am not a Wall Street Analyst) I believe if the price of the options were changed, we'd know about it as it'd have to be reported in the financials. However, I believe they can exchange options with a lower price without reporting that. In that case, the people would still be doing fairly well. Also, MS, as with other companies, knows that this is a down market, recession and all. Even if they're not getting the full gain they'd have gotten some time ago with a continually appreciating stock price, they certainly know (and MS is aware) this is also probably not the best time to try and jump ship. I'm sure they all know enough
Agreed. It appears they've simply come up with another name for marketing a stripped down network pc.
IANAL, but inclined to disagree with that comment. 'Harm' can come to consumers even if they initially benefit, ie, free browsers (which in itself can be contested by saying that the inclusion of IE is priced into the base product, one can't determine it continues to be 'free'). The breakup of Standard Oil was done because of the monopoly and practices used to destroy competition. Before they started driving competition out of business, consumers paid more. WHILE it was occuring, consumers actually benefited, since Standard underpriced all the competition by selling at a loss, the intent to put them out of business, which forced cheaper prices to all consumers at the time by both Standard AND the competition. The problem, and conclusion, was that once the competition was driven out of business, the consumers were harmed because without competition there was no compelling reason for pricing to the consumer to be reasonable and they rose to levels harming the consumer. Harm to the consumer, it would seem, therefore does not have to be determined DURING the illegal practices, and can even benefit the consumer while the practices are in place. (And if the MS browser, is indeed, determined to be 'free', one has to assume MS is 'selling' it at a loss since they didn't exactly develop it without cost. After all, it wasn't a one time 'sale' to get market share.)
I would tend to disagree, particularly to the phrase 'ordinary' fire. The jet fuel, even though burned off rapidly, was the catalyst to a catostraphic and intense fire vs. an 'ordinary' fire. An experiement (and I'm not suggesting you do this) is take two equal piles of trash/wood. Start one with a match, douse the other with kerosene, and light. The second one with the ignited kerosene will have a much more intense and energy producing blaze because the fire was started with a higher heat and over a much larger surface area. It will burn out sooner, but during the time it's buring, it will produce much more intense heat vs. a 'normal fire' allowed to spread at its own rate.
A Board of Directors has a fiduciary responsibility to the Corporation. Anyone in management who attempts to withhold access from a Board member should be subject to immediate termination. I'd love to see how the insurer carrying their D&O policy would react to this type of activity. It seems, being non-profit under 501(c)3, it's even more paramount for the board member to insure the finances are in order. It sound like management doesn't realize they are employed BY the Board, and that goes for their legal team as well. (It's interesting to note someone mentioned a law firm receiving a substantial portion of the expenses. Check the 'contributions exceedind 5,000.00' in their financial statements)
Standard IANAL disclaimer. But I wouldn't necessarily agree with the 'this seems fairly intuitive' and I'd want to check with another lawyer or two. I would agree that 'incidental' might accurately be used if, for example, while a student with the student development package, you have code generated and later, in a commercial environment, found use for a piece of that code in one of your projects. However, something doesn't seem 'incidental' if one continues to use the student development package on a continual basis to generate code for a commercial environment and simply exclude the actual compliation by the package in order to evade licensing agreements. It seems if done continually, it might not look so 'incidental'. This would particularly be true, if, IMHO, one DID use the integrated package to compile throughout development and debugging and only, when it comes time to commercially distribute, the process is changed to compile outside the package. I'd just buy the package for commercial use. Even IF one was sued and won, they'd likely pay more in legal fees than they'd have paid for the package in the first place.
Using the hypothesis to code released being obfuscated for source distribution, when not the source used for development but only at time of distribution, would also likely seem to be the same intent, to nullify the intent and spirit of the GPL. It wouldn't be the code used for development, debugging, and distribution of the commercial product, but only to attempt to circumvent the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPL.
I think with the above, I'd be looking for another job. I personally would have trouble working for a company that takes such steps. Even if you don't have a problem with their thinking, remember, if they'll do it with software, they'll do it with their employees. Besides, I'd rather be able to sleep at night.
I think you hit the nail on the head, or to expand it, that pay won't work until there's some reasonable billing scheme that's acceptable to a large mass of users from a significant %-age of sites and when a reasonable and workable payment system evolves.
At this point, I think a paid slashdot would fail for the reason I think satellite radio in it's current setting will fail to obtain necessary mass to become financially successful.
Satellite radio wants users, but charge
I think somebody mentioned down below that these corporations need to evolve. It's time to find other sources of revenue. If their only salable "product" is airtime for advertisements, they're in real trouble. Every business that I know that stuck with a single product has gone down the tubes.
These are the same folks who anticipate using the free digital channels they were given to provide revenue by forgoing HDTV in many cases, and using the additional space for revenue data type services.
But the 'illegal' to copy using keywords like titles, authors... it sound more like a slap suit than copyright suit, and someone should slap back. I'd love to see them site case law on that one. It'd be like the publishers going back to the Supremes and asking to revisit the Xerox case because instead of copying a page at a copier, one can now use search engines by keyword to get that page you want for your book report or thesis and then print it on the printer. That's an exact analogy to the theory they're using.
I'd say if we ever go back to the stone age, it won't be through nuclear war as was once thought, but it'll be due to the RIAA, MPAA, Valenti (who's from that age anyway). This is all about control, and trying to get back what they lost in the Betamax case. They should get censured for filing a frivilous suit on that keyword thing, and then go from there. (standard IANAL disclaimer. I actually was prelaw, but decided early after meeting some real jerks, it wasn't for me. I see many are still practicing.)
Something is confusing here. If one doesn't update their DRM, it says you cannot play any newly downloaded material. That seems to define one of two things. Either EVERY distributer of media for WMP must upgrade to always be current (or the existing DRM Should play from any source which hasn't upgraded)
-OR-
Windows and their Media player require a connection to a microsoft type site which is verified at every point prior to a download. This seems more likely, as in a
Now THAT sounds absurd. Let's see.. wasn't the Billy Gates 'trustworthy computing' memo something about privacy and security. That's going to be great privacy when they track everything you obtain via WMP, and probably send you ads based on what you download. Real nice. What crap. They'd better state that very very plainly up front if that's the case.
The interesting part becomes the vendor of the media. If one has a subscription service? They'll have to put in as part of the subscription that you MUST activate that automatic upgrade, or you will have services paid for but not available. This is going to get very very messy from the vendor standpoint, not just the consumer. Real Networks certainly has something to take advantage here if they play their cards right. I know too many places that'd never permit any type of automatic downloads for anything.
What's that old cliche`..what's good for the goose is good for the danger?
I find it interesting MS is going so far as to be saying they're being discriminated against by comments made about Microsoft.
Wasn't it fairly recently Ballmer and those of his ilk in the MS empire were saying Linux / open software was 'unamerican' and 'communist'?? They oviously don't mind criticizing when they're playing hardball or violating antitrust laws but if they're on the end of the comments, they're so offended and being discriminated against.
Speaking of anti-trust laws. Though convicted, have they yet said 'gee, guess we did it.' or so much as 'sorry'. I don't believe they yet acknowledge it, even to themselves. Guess that's why I have little use for them.
I disagree. How would I notice it? The yet another $#@@#$@# commercial. That's why we hardly watch programming, other than news, etc, on broadcast/cable anymore anyway. When it gets bad enough, particularly on cable channels, that the commercials are coming up every 7-8 minutes or so max, there's little continuity left in watching a program... it's no longer worth it.
I sent similar feedback in response to an email from RedHat, with the same $5 / month idea. As you said, I have a feeling quite a few others had the same thoughts.
:)
I usually buy a packaged version when it comes out, it keeps me current, gives a little back to RedHat, and gives me the n days of support. But only one machine. With 2 at home (as I figure many have with one 'user' machine and a firewall) I could use RedHat Network for updating, but I had to keep switching machines in order to use up2date. For me, the $5 / month is worth the time savings in using up2date vs. doing the individual downloads of each fix. As someone else said, guess I'll now have to step up to the plate and pay it