For the record, and since this conversation is way past the main page, you will probably not see this... But just in case you do:
I'm not blaming the union. I brought it up only because I had to explain why they had a contract and this protection built in. I hold nothing against them because those provisions do protect them from changes that could be detrimental as well.
There are places, including one where I used to work, where any variation on day-to-day work involved a contract item saying they needed "training" on how to do their job. The union portion of the workforce has provisions to prevent major change in job description to make sure there is adequate opportunity to transfer knowledge. A side effect of this was that a critical application launching shortcut had to be placed on users' desktops to launch. If it wasn't there after an upgrade, because it was only located in the start menu, then they would not launch the application and were "unable to do their work" until they received training.
Now, I don't want to argue the merits of that specific example, but I bring it up because your point is spot on. The Windows 8 UI is a change to the workflow, and what does this change bring in gains? I don't believe there's any gain to be made here for the end users. Because it changes the behavior of the system in general, this *does* greatly increase the implementation cost for that particular former employer, and for others reliant on a workforce with similar protections. The licensing is no issue because it is just part of the EA. The issue is the cost associated with getting the applications up to spec, and for having to retrain the entire workforce who will have to use those applications.
And how does it make anyone's job any faster or better to have a tile instead of a start menu?
It wouldn't have even played. There would be no action taken. If they really wanted to lock it up, the company would just sponsor a "study" to "prove" whatever they wanted.
The answer lies in how paranoid you are. Easiest solution to me is go find a liveCD or USB distro that lets you do a DoD wipe... Let it run... Return the laptop. The IT department will have a re-imaging process that they should be using anyway.
If you want to play around a little more, and if you have administrative privs on the laptop, I have a fun one. Enable BitLocker, but don't use the TPM if there's one present. Use a USB stick to store the keys and make the USB necessary to boot. Encrypt the disk. Then use dd from a liceCD to wipe the whole thing. It isn't as good as the DoD wipe, but it can be fun. It also gives you a little more time to poke around the drive to find anything else you might want to save.
Woah there Johnny. Libertarians aren't "far-right." Libertarians are slightly more conservative anarchists. It's a different dimension on the graph than the left-right:liberal-conservative scale.
And libertarians wouldn't be thrilled about this news bit either. Just more collusion and uselessness.
But they did manage to include that embarrassing quote "If cars advanced as much as computers." Of course, he neglected to mention the whole part about how "it would randomly stop working, we'd have to restart it, and we'd think it was totally acceptable."
I don't imply that a patent is there for anyone to copy. What I'm trying to point out is that patents exist "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," and it's clear that Apple isn't working in that spirit, and that's why they're being vilified. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, that's just why I think they're being vilified.
As for their "right" to license or not license their patents, they clearly don't want to license anything that would allow anyone else to contribute or compete in the market. I'd immediately look at the validity of their patents, since I have yet to see one that doesn't have some sort of prior art. Regardless of validity, Motorola (either intentionally or not) did produce a product that exposed them to liability. Given the quality of the patents, it's possible that they didn't know they were infringing. Assume they did know. Now they get a chance to challenge them, and maybe they're getting exactly what they asked for. Awesome for them then.
Either way, Apple is coming across pretty poorly in my eyes because they're really just trying to prevent new market entrants. That's the point I'm trying to make. They have every right to do so, and I don't have any reason to tell them to stop myself. They're still acting dick-headed in my humble opinion, but fortunately for them, that doesn't hurt their bottom line.
I completely agree. That particular patent is supposed to be available to make it a standard, so selecting a target to selectively enforce isn't my idea of good business. My post is in reply to the parent only. I don't like the idea of firing up FRAND patents in any sort of litigation, but I am willing to grant some slack for defensive maneuvers.
Nope. Not biased at all. The suit that Motorola fired against Apple was a direct reply to the suit the Apple opened against Motorola for violating Apple's patents.
See, Apple is vilified in this case because they aren't asking for compensation, they're trying to leverage their patents to *prevent anyone from licensing them or bringing a competitive product to market.* Motorola does license their FRAND patent fairly, with one exception being made for customers who are currently suing them.
Apple's actions are completely against any spirit of patents. They're not just a dick maneuvers, they harm markets, prevent innovation, and hurt us (the consumers). Considering that Apple has a bit of history of manipulating images to "prove" likeness with Samsung, the population here is going to side with whomever Apple is suing.
And given your posting history, I'd be very cautious when calling someone a shill.
I completely disagree dude. There are rules to war.
1) Win. Do this in whatever way is necessary to preserve as much of your side as possible. 2) The winners decide how it gets written in history. They're in charge. They are the feel good side, and they dictate how the losers pay for what they did. 3) War criminals are the ones who lost. They got what they asked for. This is the true leadership risk of waging war. If you're the Generalissimo, and you lose, it's your head both figuratively and literally. The soldiers who survive may be tried, but the leaders will most certainly be. 3a) If you welcome the winners with open arms, you're more likely to be in good shape even if you're on the losing side... Assuming the tide doesn't turn and you end up a traitor. 3b) If you fight to the bitter end and lose... It's the bitter end.
Rules of engagement are an attempt to preserve the non-fighting population who will presumably welcome the victors with open arms. I believe it's more of an attempt to maximize follow-up stabilization attempts.
Yes, this is an over-simplification. Please understand that tongue is firmly planted in cheek, even if there's a bit of truthiness in there.
I wish I didn't knee-jerk my reply... Your point is exactly what I'm thinking.
Umm... Yea. I heard that corporate routers and switches come with really weak default protection! Your server will let anyone fire it up and login out of the box!
The horrors... This story is a non-story. If you go buy hardware for some purpose, make sure you configure it. If the story said most CCTV configurations have backdoors, or are easily exploitable even after prescribed lockdown, then we'd have something to work with.
Most of the DJIA isn't Software/Technology. Those specific sectors were overvalued. The old school conglomerates and non-tech based companies are not relevant to my statement.
Well, he was the first business manager for the company. I guess Forbes is saying that he didn't learn much about the business in his 32 years there. Funny enough, this isn't a bunch of Linux/Apply fanbois throwing this out there... It's Forbes.
I do take issue them using the share value being used as his barometer. Yes, MS was $60 a share in 2000. Every share of anything that was remotely tech related was horrendously overinflated in 2000. The fact that the share is still worth $30 is impressive despite the other detriments listed in this article. It's a nitpick, and otherwise, I think the article is fair.
Our designer, who art in Portland, Hallowed be thy kernel Thy system build, Thy will be built, On ours, as it is on yours, Give us this day our daily patch, And forgive us our errors, As we forgive them that introduce theirs, And lead us not into closed software, But deliver us from non-freedom, For thine is the kernel, the sources, the glory, For ever and ever, Amen.
Actually, they should be. Because those thieves often pay for things that support the people who hold up the *AAs... They attend concerts, buy memorabilia and swag and act as walking advertisements for the artists who create the product the AAs spend so much time and money protecting.
I don't mind that they protect the content. I *do* care they they have bought and paid for a system that operates in a "guilty until proven innocent" system where all they have to do is *accuse* someone of being a thief or being an accomplice to thieving to get what they want. The AAs can start legal action and sue the *downloaders* all they want, and that's perfectly allowable, legal, and nobody will complain... But when they can force entire domains offline because someone posts a link to some content without having to get so much as a warrant, that's over the line. That's why it's a problem.
But, I guess we'll see. Some artists have embraced the new world of digital distribution. Let's see how they do.
What I find most interesting about this approach, manipulating stem cells to generate many more killer T cells feel a lot like using cancer to fight HIV... Yes, it's a controlled cancer (maybe?)... Think the reversal of http://xkcd.com/938/
Slashdot Mirror
For the record, and since this conversation is way past the main page, you will probably not see this... But just in case you do:
I'm not blaming the union. I brought it up only because I had to explain why they had a contract and this protection built in. I hold nothing against them because those provisions do protect them from changes that could be detrimental as well.
There are places, including one where I used to work, where any variation on day-to-day work involved a contract item saying they needed "training" on how to do their job. The union portion of the workforce has provisions to prevent major change in job description to make sure there is adequate opportunity to transfer knowledge. A side effect of this was that a critical application launching shortcut had to be placed on users' desktops to launch. If it wasn't there after an upgrade, because it was only located in the start menu, then they would not launch the application and were "unable to do their work" until they received training.
Now, I don't want to argue the merits of that specific example, but I bring it up because your point is spot on. The Windows 8 UI is a change to the workflow, and what does this change bring in gains? I don't believe there's any gain to be made here for the end users. Because it changes the behavior of the system in general, this *does* greatly increase the implementation cost for that particular former employer, and for others reliant on a workforce with similar protections. The licensing is no issue because it is just part of the EA. The issue is the cost associated with getting the applications up to spec, and for having to retrain the entire workforce who will have to use those applications.
And how does it make anyone's job any faster or better to have a tile instead of a start menu?
Plus, I'm pretty sure a transcript would result in a TL;DR, so I'm concurring.
It wouldn't have even played. There would be no action taken. If they really wanted to lock it up, the company would just sponsor a "study" to "prove" whatever they wanted.
What I wouldn't do for a "+1, Sad But True"
If the IT department doesn't reimage old machines, then original poster should be even more inclined to DBAN that thing.
The answer lies in how paranoid you are. Easiest solution to me is go find a liveCD or USB distro that lets you do a DoD wipe... Let it run... Return the laptop. The IT department will have a re-imaging process that they should be using anyway.
If you want to play around a little more, and if you have administrative privs on the laptop, I have a fun one. Enable BitLocker, but don't use the TPM if there's one present. Use a USB stick to store the keys and make the USB necessary to boot. Encrypt the disk. Then use dd from a liceCD to wipe the whole thing. It isn't as good as the DoD wipe, but it can be fun. It also gives you a little more time to poke around the drive to find anything else you might want to save.
I can see it now... "Batmobile, wifey needs a new pair of shoes!"
Woah there Johnny. Libertarians aren't "far-right." Libertarians are slightly more conservative anarchists. It's a different dimension on the graph than the left-right:liberal-conservative scale.
And libertarians wouldn't be thrilled about this news bit either. Just more collusion and uselessness.
But they did manage to include that embarrassing quote "If cars advanced as much as computers." Of course, he neglected to mention the whole part about how "it would randomly stop working, we'd have to restart it, and we'd think it was totally acceptable."
I don't imply that a patent is there for anyone to copy. What I'm trying to point out is that patents exist "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," and it's clear that Apple isn't working in that spirit, and that's why they're being vilified. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, that's just why I think they're being vilified.
As for their "right" to license or not license their patents, they clearly don't want to license anything that would allow anyone else to contribute or compete in the market. I'd immediately look at the validity of their patents, since I have yet to see one that doesn't have some sort of prior art. Regardless of validity, Motorola (either intentionally or not) did produce a product that exposed them to liability. Given the quality of the patents, it's possible that they didn't know they were infringing. Assume they did know. Now they get a chance to challenge them, and maybe they're getting exactly what they asked for. Awesome for them then.
Either way, Apple is coming across pretty poorly in my eyes because they're really just trying to prevent new market entrants. That's the point I'm trying to make. They have every right to do so, and I don't have any reason to tell them to stop myself. They're still acting dick-headed in my humble opinion, but fortunately for them, that doesn't hurt their bottom line.
I completely agree. That particular patent is supposed to be available to make it a standard, so selecting a target to selectively enforce isn't my idea of good business. My post is in reply to the parent only. I don't like the idea of firing up FRAND patents in any sort of litigation, but I am willing to grant some slack for defensive maneuvers.
Nope. Not biased at all. The suit that Motorola fired against Apple was a direct reply to the suit the Apple opened against Motorola for violating Apple's patents.
See, Apple is vilified in this case because they aren't asking for compensation, they're trying to leverage their patents to *prevent anyone from licensing them or bringing a competitive product to market.* Motorola does license their FRAND patent fairly, with one exception being made for customers who are currently suing them.
Apple's actions are completely against any spirit of patents. They're not just a dick maneuvers, they harm markets, prevent innovation, and hurt us (the consumers). Considering that Apple has a bit of history of manipulating images to "prove" likeness with Samsung, the population here is going to side with whomever Apple is suing.
And given your posting history, I'd be very cautious when calling someone a shill.
I completely disagree dude. There are rules to war.
1) Win. Do this in whatever way is necessary to preserve as much of your side as possible.
2) The winners decide how it gets written in history. They're in charge. They are the feel good side, and they dictate how the losers pay for what they did.
3) War criminals are the ones who lost. They got what they asked for. This is the true leadership risk of waging war. If you're the Generalissimo, and you lose, it's your head both figuratively and literally. The soldiers who survive may be tried, but the leaders will most certainly be.
3a) If you welcome the winners with open arms, you're more likely to be in good shape even if you're on the losing side... Assuming the tide doesn't turn and you end up a traitor.
3b) If you fight to the bitter end and lose... It's the bitter end.
Rules of engagement are an attempt to preserve the non-fighting population who will presumably welcome the victors with open arms. I believe it's more of an attempt to maximize follow-up stabilization attempts.
Yes, this is an over-simplification. Please understand that tongue is firmly planted in cheek, even if there's a bit of truthiness in there.
Oh... and the patches.
Chuck Norris > Anything not Chuck Norris
I wish I didn't knee-jerk my reply... Your point is exactly what I'm thinking.
Umm... Yea. I heard that corporate routers and switches come with really weak default protection! Your server will let anyone fire it up and login out of the box!
The horrors... This story is a non-story. If you go buy hardware for some purpose, make sure you configure it. If the story said most CCTV configurations have backdoors, or are easily exploitable even after prescribed lockdown, then we'd have something to work with.
I mean, really? I guess when the designers think of Closed Circuit TV, they're thinking that extends to the management network too eh?
Isn't that one of the disaster buttons? Right next to the Monster attacks?
No.
Most of the DJIA isn't Software/Technology. Those specific sectors were overvalued. The old school conglomerates and non-tech based companies are not relevant to my statement.
Well, he was the first business manager for the company. I guess Forbes is saying that he didn't learn much about the business in his 32 years there. Funny enough, this isn't a bunch of Linux/Apply fanbois throwing this out there... It's Forbes.
I do take issue them using the share value being used as his barometer. Yes, MS was $60 a share in 2000. Every share of anything that was remotely tech related was horrendously overinflated in 2000. The fact that the share is still worth $30 is impressive despite the other detriments listed in this article. It's a nitpick, and otherwise, I think the article is fair.
Our designer, who art in Portland,
Hallowed be thy kernel
Thy system build,
Thy will be built,
On ours, as it is on yours,
Give us this day our daily patch,
And forgive us our errors,
As we forgive them that introduce theirs,
And lead us not into closed software,
But deliver us from non-freedom,
For thine is the kernel, the sources, the glory,
For ever and ever,
Amen.
Yes, it does.
Actually, they should be. Because those thieves often pay for things that support the people who hold up the *AAs... They attend concerts, buy memorabilia and swag and act as walking advertisements for the artists who create the product the AAs spend so much time and money protecting.
I don't mind that they protect the content. I *do* care they they have bought and paid for a system that operates in a "guilty until proven innocent" system where all they have to do is *accuse* someone of being a thief or being an accomplice to thieving to get what they want. The AAs can start legal action and sue the *downloaders* all they want, and that's perfectly allowable, legal, and nobody will complain... But when they can force entire domains offline because someone posts a link to some content without having to get so much as a warrant, that's over the line. That's why it's a problem.
But, I guess we'll see. Some artists have embraced the new world of digital distribution. Let's see how they do.
What I find most interesting about this approach, manipulating stem cells to generate many more killer T cells feel a lot like using cancer to fight HIV... Yes, it's a controlled cancer (maybe?)... Think the reversal of http://xkcd.com/938/