Now what does this remind me of? The magnetic disks on the inside of floppy disks. Does this mean that we'll finally start to see caddy-style CDs pick up in popularity? I really don't see that much else of a purpose for more flexible CDs, unless you plan to fold them up and put them in your pocket.
It's doing something else. It's saying "We run Windows applications better than Windows does. We do everything Windows does only better than Windows does. If you buy Lindows you don't need Windows" (Yes, it's not as blatant as that, but that's essentially the lure of Lindows.)
What's so bad about that selling point? Bleem could have used the following: "If you buy Bleem, you don't need to buy a Playstation!" No harm there. We use this strategy in our capitalist society all the time. We call it competition.
Part of the planned Lindows market is businesses/eductational institutions. If you tell me that the people running the IT department are smart enough to realize "Oh, this definitely isn't Windows even though it runs Windows programs and sounds a LOT like Windows and even mentions Windows a bunch in their literature and stuff..." then... You've got more faith in the average human being than I do. =]
It's no surprize to find the product being emulated mentioned in the documentation many times, no matter how dumb the target audience. Lindows Inc. isn't masquerading as Microsoft or even trying to make people think their flagship product is Windows. They're selling a product with a name that people will recognize and associate with Windows, not because they're trying to trick anybody but because that's what the program does. It emulates Windows. When Linux came out, did people accuse Linux of trying to trick people into thinking his product was Unix?
Yes, the name "Bolex" on a watch is clearly trying to fool somebody into thinking it's a Rolex. Unlike watches, software can do many things. Unlike Bolex to Rolex, Lindows actually has some valid connection to Windows. Now perhaps if Lindows' graphic logo looked remotely similar to Windows, or had Michael Robertson tagged the product "Lindows px", we could be suspicious. But heck, look at the motto right beneath the name: "Bringing _choice_ to your computer!". If the user sees that and still thinks it is the actual Windows, that can't be helped.
This whole Lindows suit is just silly, especially considering that "windows" might soon be struck down as the generic trademark it is. As someone else said here: What grand irony it is that Microsoft might be losing their wrongfully granted trademark while trying to protect it!
I realize that MS might not have as open-and-shut case as they want, but I doubt they'll lose this, simply because of the intent of the Lindows guy.
He's selling a directly competing product, with a name that differs from Windows by only one letter. This is perfectly analogous to trying to sell a competing cola called "Loca Cola", or some such. He's clearly trying to derive benifit from the "Microsoft Windows" trademark.
But if Microsoft loses it's Windows trademark in the process, what grounds does it have for victory?
And if MS somehow wins on that, to claim infringement they also have to claim that Lindows as marketed is likely to be mistaken for their own product. (Like a "Bolex" watch.) That shouldn't fly either, because Lindows whole marketing pitch is that it _isn't_ Windows.
What?! You mean my Bolex watch isn't genuine?!! That rotten salesperson told me that it was a rare misprint that made it worth a lot more!
Built-in protection against Micorosoft's lobbying efforts at the federal level. I wouldn't have thought our government capable of such forsight.
The government can't help it. The protection is completely integrated with the Operating System. Removing it would break the government completely, or worse, we'd be seeing literally thousands of U.S. government variants! You don't want that, do you?
When you install something for FREE from the internet, you can't assume it will work as you want it to.
Or go where you expect it to. Programs like Morpheus cram Bonzi-Buddy, Gator and other programs all over the place when you put it on the computer. And crimminy, all those registry entries*! Okay, so I'm a Windows user. But since Windows is the dominant operating system and most programs for it aren't open source, Windows closed source programs are the best example for this conversation.
I think that most problems with this kind of software could be solved by programmers putting on some sort of standard 'seal of friendliness' on software they produce. This would be a promise to the user that:
a) New files and directories will only be installed within the directory the user specifies, and no shortcuts to any program will be installed in any location without giving the user a checkbox not to install it.
b) The user will be told how many entries the install program will be put in the Registry and why each of them is necessary.
c) A promise that the program will attempt to send no information onto the internet unless the user has authorized it.
d) Any promotional offers included with the install will be strictly 'op-in' only, and no annoying pop-up boxes will warn the user what a great deal they are missing out on if they decide to pass them up.
e) The user is given the choice of the program starting by default upon logging in during the install.
f) Programs will uninstall cleanly, merely deleting it's own files and every registry entry it had made. If the user decides to bypass the uninstall process it should give them no trouble when the directory the file is in is simply deleted. No webpages will pop up automatically when you try to install or uninstall a program.
Something along those lines, at least. Granted, there are programs that can't follow these rules, ones that require certain DLLs or other files to be installed in a certain system directory, and they simply won't meet the standard. But I don't think that these requests are unreasonable at all. Look at Irfanview and Enzip -- great programs, no dishonest crap. And although we could initially only expect hobby freeware creators to follow such a standard, who knows how far it could go? If users like us start demanding that companies adhere to such a standard before we will use their programs then things may start to change. Even programs like Morpheus and Limewire could still make their advertising profits and collect user data while following these rules.
I'll be looking into making more of this on my own. Perhaps it's time to make another useless web award.:p
* Interesting note: Morpheus Preview Edition puts a key in your registry called 'Gnutella' -- it seems they took the Open Source Gnucleus code and modified it very little before putting their own wrapper over it. The parent company isn't exactly advertising this, either, for obvious reasons.
Hmmm. Not so much Buran (AKA Shuttleski; the two vehicles look remarkably similar), but it is the spitting image of the X-20 Dynasoar
The X-20 is *not* a dinosaur! It can't be that old, I haven't even seen any SPECIAL OFFERS for it yet! And why would you need an X-20, when the X-10 has the all *NEW* Pan & Tilt feature? For crying out loud, didn't you see the girl in the bikini on the popunder window? If I understand correctly, she comes with it!
I agree that this lawsuit is unnecessary. Unlike the Microsoft case, where the company used it's position to illegally expand it's monopoly (I.E. using licensing schemes to prevent OEM companies from shipping a second operating system with their computers), I don't think IBM has done anything similar in the past few decades. At least, I have no knowledge of them doing so. What I do know is that IBM has been really careful not to tread on other companies' toes since the first Antitrust scare brought against them, at one time refusing to drop prices to stay below costs -- for fear of being seen as a large company waging a price war -- and that cost them dearly.
The government does need to step in every once and a while to keep capitalism from growing too big. But not here, not now.
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. It looks like Seattle are trying to levy something that smells awfully like a property type tax, in which case they'll tax you on their percieved value of the software, not on revenue you generate from selling it.
Somebody send this news off to One Microsoft Way. I'm sure Bill Gates would love to know this. If the tax is truly based on the percieved value of the software, the company could be getting money from the government!
Quite simply the US has had a standing policy that any attack on the US with weapons of mass destruction, be it chemical, biological, nuclear or otherwise, will be responded to with a nuclear strike. So if a rouge nation used chemical weapons on a US city or interest, we would respond, most likely, with nuclear weapons. This is OLD doctrine.
Read the BBC article. There were three options that they explored in using them. One was for retaliation. Another was for countries who could defend themselves adequately against conventional weapons. The third is a "catch-all" clause -- it's worded so vague that any reason you can think of can be crammed into option #3.
In which case the U.S. will suddenly take an unexpected interest in space exploration, to get people there first.
Princess Bride Reference
on
To The Pain
·
· Score: 2
Buttercup: Oh, Westley, will you ever forgive me? Westley: What hideous sin have you committed lately? Buttercup: I got married. I didn't want to. It all happened so fast. Westley: It never happened. Buttercup: What? Westley: It never happened. Buttercup: But it did! I was there...this old man said man and wife. Westley: Did you say I do? Buttercup: Uh...no. We sort of skipped that part. Westley: Then you're not married. You didn't say it. You didn't do it.
Wouldn't you agree, your highness? Humperdink: A technicality that will shortly be remedied...but first things
first.. [He draws his sword] To the death! Westley: [slowly sitting up] No! To the pain! Humperdink: I don't think I'm quite familiar with that phrase? Westley: I'll explain, and I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to
understand. You wart-hog-faced buffoon! Humperdink: [insulted] That may be the first time in my life a man has dared
insult me. Westley: It won't be the last. To the pain means the first thing you lose will
be your your feet below the ankles, then your hands at your wrists.
Next, your nose. Humperdink: Then my tongue, I suppose? I killed you too quickly the last
time, a mistake I don't mean to duplicate tonight. Westley: I wasn't finished! The next thing you lose will be your left eye
followed by your right! Humperdink: And then my ears...I understand! Let's get on with it! Westley: Wrong! Your ears you keep, and I'll tell you why; so that every
shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness is yours to cherish.
Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman that cries out,
'dear god what is that thing!' will echo in your perfect ears. That is
what to the pain means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in
freakish misery forever.
[Or in otherwords, you'll be turned into Cowboy Neal.]
Uh, it's not the same thing at all. When I buy hardware, I buy it for ME to use. Not everyone else. Same thing with a car. Would you want people using your car when you're not, and have to still cover all the maintance costs associated with it? Or buy all the gas for it? (Which is the equivalence of paying for the electricity bill)
What you said included the idea that someone else using your computer's idle CPU cycles will reduce it's lifetime. This is a rather foolish notion if you leave your computer on all the time anyhow, and so the analogy makes sense. If you do turn your computer on and off frequently in hopes of extending it's lifetime, you might want to consider the argument that leaving the computer on full-time is less stressful to it than constantly flicking the power switch on. I think the downsides of the two choices pretty much balance each other out.
Now, if you want compensation for your electricity for leaving it on all of the time, the article states that you're going to get some small monetary amount for all of that unused processing power.
What, are you kidding me? Game Boy Advance goes for 14 hours on it's AA batteries. This is due to advances in efficiency, not batteries. Isn't that what we should be more concerned about?
What, are you kidding me? Game Boy Advance goes for 14 hours on it's AA batteries. This is due to advances in efficiency, not batteries. Isn't that what we should be more concerned about?
Slashdot Mirror
The Flex CD is non-toxic and may be used with food items
A little bit odd, don't you think?
Not at all! Finally, a cure for world hunger! We can just ship third-world countries our never-ending supply AOL-CDs!
Mmm... CD-PB&J sandwich. For those who prefer wheat, CD-R-PB&J.
Now what does this remind me of? The magnetic disks on the inside of floppy disks. Does this mean that we'll finally start to see caddy-style CDs pick up in popularity? I really don't see that much else of a purpose for more flexible CDs, unless you plan to fold them up and put them in your pocket.
Er, RMS is an atheist, so the joke falls a bit flat, but still funny.
Considering it's a joke, it shouldn't matter at all his religion. I'm an atheist, and I thought it was funny.
It's doing something else. It's saying "We run Windows applications better than Windows does. We do everything Windows does only better than Windows does. If you buy Lindows you don't need Windows" (Yes, it's not as blatant as that, but that's essentially the lure of Lindows.)
What's so bad about that selling point? Bleem could have used the following: "If you buy Bleem, you don't need to buy a Playstation!" No harm there. We use this strategy in our capitalist society all the time. We call it competition.
Part of the planned Lindows market is businesses/eductational institutions. If you tell me that the people running the IT department are smart enough to realize "Oh, this definitely isn't Windows even though it runs Windows programs and sounds a LOT like Windows and even mentions Windows a bunch in their literature and stuff..." then... You've got more faith in the average human being than I do. =]
It's no surprize to find the product being emulated mentioned in the documentation many times, no matter how dumb the target audience. Lindows Inc. isn't masquerading as Microsoft or even trying to make people think their flagship product is Windows. They're selling a product with a name that people will recognize and associate with Windows, not because they're trying to trick anybody but because that's what the program does. It emulates Windows. When Linux came out, did people accuse Linux of trying to trick people into thinking his product was Unix?
Yes, the name "Bolex" on a watch is clearly trying to fool somebody into thinking it's a Rolex. Unlike watches, software can do many things. Unlike Bolex to Rolex, Lindows actually has some valid connection to Windows. Now perhaps if Lindows' graphic logo looked remotely similar to Windows, or had Michael Robertson tagged the product "Lindows px", we could be suspicious. But heck, look at the motto right beneath the name: "Bringing _choice_ to your computer!". If the user sees that and still thinks it is the actual Windows, that can't be helped.
This whole Lindows suit is just silly, especially considering that "windows" might soon be struck down as the generic trademark it is. As someone else said here: What grand irony it is that Microsoft might be losing their wrongfully granted trademark while trying to protect it!
I realize that MS might not have as open-and-shut case as they want, but I doubt they'll lose this, simply because of the intent of the Lindows guy.
He's selling a directly competing product, with a name that differs from Windows by only one letter. This is perfectly analogous to trying to sell a competing cola called "Loca Cola", or some such. He's clearly trying to derive benifit from the "Microsoft Windows" trademark.
But if Microsoft loses it's Windows trademark in the process, what grounds does it have for victory?
And if MS somehow wins on that, to claim infringement they also have to claim that Lindows as marketed is likely to be mistaken for their own product. (Like a "Bolex" watch.) That shouldn't fly either, because Lindows whole marketing pitch is that it _isn't_ Windows.
What?! You mean my Bolex watch isn't genuine?!! That rotten salesperson told me that it was a rare misprint that made it worth a lot more!
Built-in protection against Micorosoft's lobbying efforts at the federal level. I wouldn't have thought our government capable of such forsight.
The government can't help it. The protection is completely integrated with the Operating System. Removing it would break the government completely, or worse, we'd be seeing literally thousands of U.S. government variants! You don't want that, do you?
When you install something for FREE from the internet, you can't assume it will work as you want it to.
:p
Or go where you expect it to. Programs like Morpheus cram Bonzi-Buddy, Gator and other programs all over the place when you put it on the computer. And crimminy, all those registry entries*! Okay, so I'm a Windows user. But since Windows is the dominant operating system and most programs for it aren't open source, Windows closed source programs are the best example for this conversation.
I think that most problems with this kind of software could be solved by programmers putting on some sort of standard 'seal of friendliness' on software they produce. This would be a promise to the user that:
a) New files and directories will only be installed within the directory the user specifies, and no shortcuts to any program will be installed in any location without giving the user a checkbox not to install it.
b) The user will be told how many entries the install program will be put in the Registry and why each of them is necessary.
c) A promise that the program will attempt to send no information onto the internet unless the user has authorized it.
d) Any promotional offers included with the install will be strictly 'op-in' only, and no annoying pop-up boxes will warn the user what a great deal they are missing out on if they decide to pass them up.
e) The user is given the choice of the program starting by default upon logging in during the install.
f) Programs will uninstall cleanly, merely deleting it's own files and every registry entry it had made. If the user decides to bypass the uninstall process it should give them no trouble when the directory the file is in is simply deleted. No webpages will pop up automatically when you try to install or uninstall a program.
Something along those lines, at least. Granted, there are programs that can't follow these rules, ones that require certain DLLs or other files to be installed in a certain system directory, and they simply won't meet the standard. But I don't think that these requests are unreasonable at all. Look at Irfanview and Enzip -- great programs, no dishonest crap. And although we could initially only expect hobby freeware creators to follow such a standard, who knows how far it could go? If users like us start demanding that companies adhere to such a standard before we will use their programs then things may start to change. Even programs like Morpheus and Limewire could still make their advertising profits and collect user data while following these rules.
I'll be looking into making more of this on my own. Perhaps it's time to make another useless web award.
* Interesting note: Morpheus Preview Edition puts a key in your registry called 'Gnutella' -- it seems they took the Open Source Gnucleus code and modified it very little before putting their own wrapper over it. The parent company isn't exactly advertising this, either, for obvious reasons.
Hmmm. Not so much Buran (AKA Shuttleski; the two vehicles look remarkably similar), but it is the spitting image of the X-20 Dynasoar
The X-20 is *not* a dinosaur! It can't be that old, I haven't even seen any SPECIAL OFFERS for it yet! And why would you need an X-20, when the X-10 has the all *NEW* Pan & Tilt feature? For crying out loud, didn't you see the girl in the bikini on the popunder window? If I understand correctly, she comes with it!
> Potential Sucker^H^H^H^H^H^H
I'm sorry, would somebody mind explaining this ^H^H^H^H thing to me? I see it a lot but I have no clue what the meaning is.
Let me guess... XPFS?
Naturally, it wouldn't be compatible with Windows XP.
I agree that this lawsuit is unnecessary. Unlike the Microsoft case, where the company used it's position to illegally expand it's monopoly (I.E. using licensing schemes to prevent OEM companies from shipping a second operating system with their computers), I don't think IBM has done anything similar in the past few decades. At least, I have no knowledge of them doing so. What I do know is that IBM has been really careful not to tread on other companies' toes since the first Antitrust scare brought against them, at one time refusing to drop prices to stay below costs -- for fear of being seen as a large company waging a price war -- and that cost them dearly.
The government does need to step in every once and a while to keep capitalism from growing too big. But not here, not now.
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. It looks like Seattle are trying to levy something that smells awfully like a property type tax, in which case they'll tax you on their percieved value of the software, not on revenue you generate from selling it.
Somebody send this news off to One Microsoft Way. I'm sure Bill Gates would love to know this. If the tax is truly based on the percieved value of the software, the company could be getting money from the government!
Great, thanks! I was hoping I could import my mail archives.
Yes, but does Mozilla include a mail client? That's the only reason I'm using Netscape 6.2.
Quite simply the US has had a standing policy that any attack on the US with weapons of mass destruction, be it chemical, biological, nuclear or otherwise, will be responded to with a nuclear strike. So if a rouge nation used chemical weapons on a US city or interest, we would respond, most likely, with nuclear weapons. This is OLD doctrine.
Read the BBC article. There were three options that they explored in using them. One was for retaliation. Another was for countries who could defend themselves adequately against conventional weapons. The third is a "catch-all" clause -- it's worded so vague that any reason you can think of can be crammed into option #3.
1) Japanese negotiation [...]
2) The bombs were [...]
2) A large number [...]
3) The bombs worked [...]
Well, you have to give our country credit.
The U.S.A... we can't count, but we sure can nuke!
(Alas, poor Karma, I knew thee well.)
> don't hold your breath for a Mars mission.
Unless it's from China.
In which case the U.S. will suddenly take an unexpected interest in space exploration, to get people there first.
Buttercup: Oh, Westley, will you ever forgive me?
Westley: What hideous sin have you committed lately?
Buttercup: I got married. I didn't want to. It all happened so fast.
Westley: It never happened.
Buttercup: What?
Westley: It never happened.
Buttercup: But it did! I was there...this old man said man and wife.
Westley: Did you say I do?
Buttercup: Uh...no. We sort of skipped that part.
Westley: Then you're not married. You didn't say it. You didn't do it.
Wouldn't you agree, your highness?
Humperdink: A technicality that will shortly be remedied...but first things
first.. [He draws his sword] To the death!
Westley: [slowly sitting up] No! To the pain!
Humperdink: I don't think I'm quite familiar with that phrase?
Westley: I'll explain, and I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to
understand. You wart-hog-faced buffoon!
Humperdink: [insulted] That may be the first time in my life a man has dared
insult me.
Westley: It won't be the last. To the pain means the first thing you lose will
be your your feet below the ankles, then your hands at your wrists.
Next, your nose.
Humperdink: Then my tongue, I suppose? I killed you too quickly the last
time, a mistake I don't mean to duplicate tonight.
Westley: I wasn't finished! The next thing you lose will be your left eye
followed by your right!
Humperdink: And then my ears...I understand! Let's get on with it!
Westley: Wrong! Your ears you keep, and I'll tell you why; so that every
shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness is yours to cherish.
Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman that cries out,
'dear god what is that thing!' will echo in your perfect ears. That is
what to the pain means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in
freakish misery forever.
[Or in otherwords, you'll be turned into Cowboy Neal.]
11006 ant species as of 2/28/2002, & counting
The DOJ has said that 2/3 of these were against the Microsoft Settlement, but that only 47 of those species were deemed "significant".
Bloody hell! Now what's going to happen to the mission?!
Don't worry, we have Tom Cruise as a stand in. We just need to finish negotiating his contract first.
Uh, it's not the same thing at all. When I buy hardware, I buy it for ME to use. Not everyone else. Same thing with a car. Would you want people using your car when you're not, and have to still cover all the maintance costs associated with it? Or buy all the gas for it? (Which is the equivalence of paying for the electricity bill)
What you said included the idea that someone else using your computer's idle CPU cycles will reduce it's lifetime. This is a rather foolish notion if you leave your computer on all the time anyhow, and so the analogy makes sense. If you do turn your computer on and off frequently in hopes of extending it's lifetime, you might want to consider the argument that leaving the computer on full-time is less stressful to it than constantly flicking the power switch on. I think the downsides of the two choices pretty much balance each other out.
Now, if you want compensation for your electricity for leaving it on all of the time, the article states that you're going to get some small monetary amount for all of that unused processing power.
Wrong thread, sorry.
What, are you kidding me? Game Boy Advance goes for 14 hours on it's AA batteries. This is due to advances in efficiency, not batteries. Isn't that what we should be more concerned about?
What, are you kidding me? Game Boy Advance goes for 14 hours on it's AA batteries. This is due to advances in efficiency, not batteries. Isn't that what we should be more concerned about?