That, or they accept the position to work at the company that decides to pull the trigger. I think that both of your points are valid and can peacefully coexist.
After all, you still need the right gun... The one that will do the job.
The racial trolling has really gone down in quality lately. It used to be some quick hits, or very long complicated posts that seemed to require a few hours of prep time before hitting the copy/paste combo on the poster's system. It feels like the death throngs of a group of people who just aren't adapting to new ignoring techniques.
I blame Microsoft.
(Clearly they're hiring away the quality trolls to defend their slimy actions in recent months.)
I also submit that if Google had procured the patents in question, not only would we know what they were, they would probably not be using said patents in an offensive to gain market share.
Although you provide a compelling argument. There are a couple of facts that you overlook here: 1) Microsoft wouldn't disclose which patents were the problem to the vendors, nor Google. As stated in the articles here, B&N had to break an NDA to show the world what Microsoft was leveraging for the lawsuits. That's piss poor behavior in my opinion, and a sign of operating in "bad faith." 2) The licensing fees are comparable to the entire cost of a Windows Mobile OS license. This is not a "reasonable" fee which is what patent law calls for. 3) The licensing agreement includes provisions that prevent the licensee from making changes to the product, and reach far beyond the scope of the patents that are owned by the patent holder. Specifically, by allowing Microsoft (in PJ's terms) veto power, Microsoft is attempting to assert full control over a product that they are trying to compete against. That is highly anti-competitive.
And of freaking course Google is releasing the OS for free. It's called OPEN SOURCE. The OS is freely available. Honestly, I can't blame Google for trying to procure patents... It's a defensive measure against cabals like this. The whole point of the lawsuits against Android makers is to use the courts to gain market share. This does great harm to the consumer by stifling competition and innovation (see Internet Explorer 6... That was a hideous mess and web technologies were stagnant until the Mozilla foundation released Firefox). That's why these licenses are problem, and that's why I don't agree with your statement that Google is the problem.
Yes, you're right. I got irritated by parent just taking the hammer to an extreme example of CLI. Most end users, even if they have to use a CLI, or terminal emulator, will never have to use the pipe.
I could've specified, and I probably should have. I should've countered that adoption is driven by usefulness, not prettiness... I'd concede that computing may not be as pervasive as it is today if it had crappier interfaces. I will say that I don't think that recent changes to these interfaces are designed to further adoption though. I honestly don't know why the suits and designers think that the same interface everywhere is appropriate. A phone isn't the same as a PC, and it's not the same as my TV. They serve different functions, and should be "easy to use" over "consistent."
I'm pretty sure that in the case you're speaking to here, there are still individuals who would be held liable for what amounts to fraud.
The idea of corporate welfare was always puzzling to me (excepting the TBTF bailouts). I thought that the term "Corporate Welfare" was a derogatory term for when a corporation essentially cooks their books so that they get subsidized by the IRS (in losses), but somehow declares profits overseas and doesn't pay taxes.
As someone who has supported users for years... On whatever F-ing interface they've had to use... 3270-Mainframe, Windows, AIX, Solaris (CLI or GUI), it all came down to one simple thing:
How do I do my job?
Frankly, it doesn't matter a damn what the interface is. For most business grunts, end users, whomever, it really doesn't matter what's in front of them because they'll learn how to use it. If it works, and if works *reliably* then the end users end up loving it. I've heard the phrase, "It's ugly as sin, but it works" and "It looks nice, but I can't use it" enough.
At the rate they're going, they'll eventually just catch up to the year anyway... Let's see... Rounding today to roughly 85% of the year elapsed, and estimating a major release every two months (6 per year):
2011.85 + X/6 = 8 + x 2003.85 = x - X/6 2003.85 = 6x/6 - x/6 = 5x/6 (2003.85 * 6)/5 = 2404.62 = x
Nevermind. I'm not going to see the great FireFox version/year junction. Unless someone masters keeping my head going... Living a life of quiet dignity.
Correction: They don't want to block access to anything... They just want to make sure they monetize every single aspect of "accessing that content" that they possibly can. It's not censorship at all, it's profiteering. I think it's horrendously lame to ask for a license for every single copy of something that I can only use "one at a time," but that's their deal, and that's how they set it up.
The problem is: They want to make sure nobody can do anything without paying them... But they don't want to have to "burden" themselves with enforcing that which is theirs. I'm suffering for a good analogy, because I can't really think of anything even remotely close to how silly it is.
Maybe: It's like being robbed, but expecting a store owner to call the police, fill out the reports, and appear in court for you?
Many of us hate the RIAA, but we like the music and some of us are actually willing to purchase said music... Sadly, depending on the channel, we may have to give them some money. But that doesn't mean we've forgotten that link. Some of us feel that it's important to legally purchase the music of our favorite artists, and are willing to concede that some of it goes to them.
My impression is that it's mostly a speed tax and revenue generation. The studies seem to be conflicted on whether or not a speed limit is safer overall.
The only consensus is that when an accident happens, it's more likely to be fatal at higher speeds... No consensus on whether or not it actually reduces incidents. Some studies say that more deaths occur with higher speeds... But my 5 minutes of research isn't turning up much to answer the question clearly.
Looking at your example, that should know what they're getting into when they make that decision. While I have sympathy for someone doing everything that can to follow their dreams and do what they love, that student had to know what was coming before taking on that monster debt. But that's their choice... I think they need to be responsible for what they just did.
I'd be more concerned with the people who go into a major that appears to be a money-maker. When I was in school, it seemed like everyone was trying to get into Computer Science... And I remember a LOT of people not making it through year 2. Some of them found other majors... Some didn't. It's that last group that now has debt, but doesn't have anything to show for it. Not only are they burdened by their debt, but they haven't actually put themselves in a position to pay it back.
Of course, let's be honest, most of them should've become plumbers, electricians, and other skilled tradespeople. And before someone flags me: Seriously, there's NOTHING wrong with that. Those people are needed (and they can make some excellent money).
h4rr4r - Shills everywhere are outraged that you compare LA to them. Shills shill for the thrill of the shill, but they do so with their own material. LA here is much worse, he has his own motivations that are beyond being a huge fanboy... Maybe LA really thinks these things, and truly believes it all... Maybe he's paid... Maybe he's not. Either way, that's the beauty of the culture here:
Without a solid foundation, based on facts and a hint of humility to admit that it is just his opinion, he's lumped in with the Fr1$t Ps0ts trolls. When a post sounds like a sales pitch (which frankly is exactly what I read there), it's not long for the/. crowd.
Plus, his SID is waaaaaay to high to be trustworthy.
Citations and explanations would be awesome. As a wise man once said: "Saying something sucks isn't a take."
Someone made a rocket version of an electric car to get to 100mph... but still wildly dangerous back then. Funny thing, check out the wikipedia article on the electric car from 1911 talking about the various advantages of electric over gas back then...
How about this: Electric cars fill a particular market very well. There are plenty of drivers who need a commuter car, and saving a couple gallons a day getting to and from work can probably save that person about $800 in fuel costs per year. Yes, the cars are expensive and that's only about $4,000 in fuel savings over the use of a car in 5 years, but not worrying about where to find a pump isn't so bad. I say run with it if you like it, and let's see if we can reduce our dependence on a particular region of the world that doesn't really like us.
Doesn't that also depend a lot on how the information is presented? Saying to someone: "Look, this is what people regard as basic security, but it's not" and showing them how easy it is to defeat would certainly be much more than teaching them how to break into something.
Not showing them the lock-pick is merely security through obscurity... It's easy enough to find if you're willing to look for it. I, for one, am all for presenting information like this in a responsible manner, which I sincerely hope is the case here.
To be fair, the NSA was culpable for allowing 9/11 to happen. They had information that indicated that the perps were doing something. They also refused to share that info with the FBI and the CIA... It wasn't the first time either.
BUT, rather than own it, Hayden pretty much sells the idea that the only way to prevent this from happening again is to increase spying and to increase the scope of what the NSA can sweep. I don't think it's tyrannical... But I also don't believe for a second that they're guilt-wracked. I've seen this pattern before... It's called not owning the issue and covering your ass. Hayden did exactly that. He came up with another "option" that made it look like it wasn't his (or the NSA's fault) and it was bought.
Actually... I used to be an on-demand IT guy. I worked for a company that charged on billable hours. When something needed maintenance or a break happened, I would schedule some time to see them and take care of it. When my clients had a need, they'd talk it out with me and our business guy, we'd draw up a quote and then do the work. We'd also take care of necessary maintenance (again on demand).
It's actually a pretty good way to get the IT needs taken care of without needing to spend 100K... Or even 50K... If you're an office of about a dozen or so you could probably get by on less than 10K/year including hardware.
It worked out for me because I had a lot of clients, so I always had work to do... It worked great for my clients because (I like to think) that I did good work for them without costing them their profit margin.
Tony - The problem wasn't the alleged hacking... the problem was the odd behavior for someone who supposedly had their account hacked... You know the same way that TO's brother posted some stuff on his Twitter account. The simple question of, "So, that wasn't a picture of you?" was met with extreme anger, and no answer. A simple chuckle, and "No, but I wish it was" would have ended the story right there.
In fact, even if you said, "Yes, it was me. I honestly don't know how someone got that picture" this would have gone away very quickly again.
The questions about getting the FBI or some other agency involved were handled perfectly. Claiming it's harmless and a prank was an excellent defense... but seriously, 15 more seconds of handling that last question would have saved you a lot of ridicule. You were soooo close.
Slashdot Mirror
That, or they accept the position to work at the company that decides to pull the trigger. I think that both of your points are valid and can peacefully coexist.
After all, you still need the right gun... The one that will do the job.
The racial trolling has really gone down in quality lately. It used to be some quick hits, or very long complicated posts that seemed to require a few hours of prep time before hitting the copy/paste combo on the poster's system. It feels like the death throngs of a group of people who just aren't adapting to new ignoring techniques.
I blame Microsoft.
(Clearly they're hiring away the quality trolls to defend their slimy actions in recent months.)
My bad. I misread.
I also submit that if Google had procured the patents in question, not only would we know what they were, they would probably not be using said patents in an offensive to gain market share.
Although you provide a compelling argument. There are a couple of facts that you overlook here:
1) Microsoft wouldn't disclose which patents were the problem to the vendors, nor Google. As stated in the articles here, B&N had to break an NDA to show the world what Microsoft was leveraging for the lawsuits. That's piss poor behavior in my opinion, and a sign of operating in "bad faith."
2) The licensing fees are comparable to the entire cost of a Windows Mobile OS license. This is not a "reasonable" fee which is what patent law calls for.
3) The licensing agreement includes provisions that prevent the licensee from making changes to the product, and reach far beyond the scope of the patents that are owned by the patent holder. Specifically, by allowing Microsoft (in PJ's terms) veto power, Microsoft is attempting to assert full control over a product that they are trying to compete against. That is highly anti-competitive.
And of freaking course Google is releasing the OS for free. It's called OPEN SOURCE. The OS is freely available. Honestly, I can't blame Google for trying to procure patents... It's a defensive measure against cabals like this. The whole point of the lawsuits against Android makers is to use the courts to gain market share. This does great harm to the consumer by stifling competition and innovation (see Internet Explorer 6... That was a hideous mess and web technologies were stagnant until the Mozilla foundation released Firefox). That's why these licenses are problem, and that's why I don't agree with your statement that Google is the problem.
Keep pushing kids around, and eventually someone's going to push back.
Fortunately, this is a pretty big kid. This should be fun.
Yes, you're right. I got irritated by parent just taking the hammer to an extreme example of CLI. Most end users, even if they have to use a CLI, or terminal emulator, will never have to use the pipe.
I could've specified, and I probably should have. I should've countered that adoption is driven by usefulness, not prettiness... I'd concede that computing may not be as pervasive as it is today if it had crappier interfaces. I will say that I don't think that recent changes to these interfaces are designed to further adoption though. I honestly don't know why the suits and designers think that the same interface everywhere is appropriate. A phone isn't the same as a PC, and it's not the same as my TV. They serve different functions, and should be "easy to use" over "consistent."
I'm pretty sure that in the case you're speaking to here, there are still individuals who would be held liable for what amounts to fraud.
The idea of corporate welfare was always puzzling to me (excepting the TBTF bailouts). I thought that the term "Corporate Welfare" was a derogatory term for when a corporation essentially cooks their books so that they get subsidized by the IRS (in losses), but somehow declares profits overseas and doesn't pay taxes.
As someone who has supported users for years... On whatever F-ing interface they've had to use... 3270-Mainframe, Windows, AIX, Solaris (CLI or GUI), it all came down to one simple thing:
How do I do my job?
Frankly, it doesn't matter a damn what the interface is. For most business grunts, end users, whomever, it really doesn't matter what's in front of them because they'll learn how to use it. If it works, and if works *reliably* then the end users end up loving it. I've heard the phrase, "It's ugly as sin, but it works" and "It looks nice, but I can't use it" enough.
At the rate they're going, they'll eventually just catch up to the year anyway... Let's see... Rounding today to roughly 85% of the year elapsed, and estimating a major release every two months (6 per year):
2011.85 + X/6 = 8 + x
2003.85 = x - X/6
2003.85 = 6x/6 - x/6 = 5x/6
(2003.85 * 6)/5 = 2404.62 = x
Nevermind. I'm not going to see the great FireFox version/year junction. Unless someone masters keeping my head going... Living a life of quiet dignity.
I'd buy it.
$5. Take it leave it HP.
Correction: They don't want to block access to anything... They just want to make sure they monetize every single aspect of "accessing that content" that they possibly can. It's not censorship at all, it's profiteering. I think it's horrendously lame to ask for a license for every single copy of something that I can only use "one at a time," but that's their deal, and that's how they set it up.
The problem is: They want to make sure nobody can do anything without paying them... But they don't want to have to "burden" themselves with enforcing that which is theirs. I'm suffering for a good analogy, because I can't really think of anything even remotely close to how silly it is.
Maybe: It's like being robbed, but expecting a store owner to call the police, fill out the reports, and appear in court for you?
Many of us hate the RIAA, but we like the music and some of us are actually willing to purchase said music... Sadly, depending on the channel, we may have to give them some money. But that doesn't mean we've forgotten that link. Some of us feel that it's important to legally purchase the music of our favorite artists, and are willing to concede that some of it goes to them.
My impression is that it's mostly a speed tax and revenue generation. The studies seem to be conflicted on whether or not a speed limit is safer overall.
The only consensus is that when an accident happens, it's more likely to be fatal at higher speeds... No consensus on whether or not it actually reduces incidents. Some studies say that more deaths occur with higher speeds... But my 5 minutes of research isn't turning up much to answer the question clearly.
Looking at your example, that should know what they're getting into when they make that decision. While I have sympathy for someone doing everything that can to follow their dreams and do what they love, that student had to know what was coming before taking on that monster debt. But that's their choice... I think they need to be responsible for what they just did.
I'd be more concerned with the people who go into a major that appears to be a money-maker. When I was in school, it seemed like everyone was trying to get into Computer Science... And I remember a LOT of people not making it through year 2. Some of them found other majors... Some didn't. It's that last group that now has debt, but doesn't have anything to show for it. Not only are they burdened by their debt, but they haven't actually put themselves in a position to pay it back.
Of course, let's be honest, most of them should've become plumbers, electricians, and other skilled tradespeople. And before someone flags me: Seriously, there's NOTHING wrong with that. Those people are needed (and they can make some excellent money).
No, they just want to flood your internet connection and knock you offline.
h4rr4r - Shills everywhere are outraged that you compare LA to them. Shills shill for the thrill of the shill, but they do so with their own material. LA here is much worse, he has his own motivations that are beyond being a huge fanboy... Maybe LA really thinks these things, and truly believes it all... Maybe he's paid... Maybe he's not. Either way, that's the beauty of the culture here:
Without a solid foundation, based on facts and a hint of humility to admit that it is just his opinion, he's lumped in with the Fr1$t Ps0ts trolls. When a post sounds like a sales pitch (which frankly is exactly what I read there), it's not long for the /. crowd.
Plus, his SID is waaaaaay to high to be trustworthy.
Citations and explanations would be awesome. As a wise man once said: "Saying something sucks isn't a take."
Someone made a rocket version of an electric car to get to 100mph... but still wildly dangerous back then. Funny thing, check out the wikipedia article on the electric car from 1911 talking about the various advantages of electric over gas back then...
How about this: Electric cars fill a particular market very well. There are plenty of drivers who need a commuter car, and saving a couple gallons a day getting to and from work can probably save that person about $800 in fuel costs per year. Yes, the cars are expensive and that's only about $4,000 in fuel savings over the use of a car in 5 years, but not worrying about where to find a pump isn't so bad. I say run with it if you like it, and let's see if we can reduce our dependence on a particular region of the world that doesn't really like us.
I'd say the first step would be a more realistic gravity pull in Tank Command.
*cough*whoosh*cough*
Doesn't that also depend a lot on how the information is presented? Saying to someone: "Look, this is what people regard as basic security, but it's not" and showing them how easy it is to defeat would certainly be much more than teaching them how to break into something.
Not showing them the lock-pick is merely security through obscurity... It's easy enough to find if you're willing to look for it. I, for one, am all for presenting information like this in a responsible manner, which I sincerely hope is the case here.
To be fair, the NSA was culpable for allowing 9/11 to happen. They had information that indicated that the perps were doing something. They also refused to share that info with the FBI and the CIA... It wasn't the first time either.
BUT, rather than own it, Hayden pretty much sells the idea that the only way to prevent this from happening again is to increase spying and to increase the scope of what the NSA can sweep. I don't think it's tyrannical... But I also don't believe for a second that they're guilt-wracked. I've seen this pattern before... It's called not owning the issue and covering your ass. Hayden did exactly that. He came up with another "option" that made it look like it wasn't his (or the NSA's fault) and it was bought.
No problem... It's ********
Credit
Actually... I used to be an on-demand IT guy. I worked for a company that charged on billable hours. When something needed maintenance or a break happened, I would schedule some time to see them and take care of it. When my clients had a need, they'd talk it out with me and our business guy, we'd draw up a quote and then do the work. We'd also take care of necessary maintenance (again on demand).
It's actually a pretty good way to get the IT needs taken care of without needing to spend 100K... Or even 50K... If you're an office of about a dozen or so you could probably get by on less than 10K/year including hardware.
It worked out for me because I had a lot of clients, so I always had work to do... It worked great for my clients because (I like to think) that I did good work for them without costing them their profit margin.
Tony - The problem wasn't the alleged hacking... the problem was the odd behavior for someone who supposedly had their account hacked... You know the same way that TO's brother posted some stuff on his Twitter account. The simple question of, "So, that wasn't a picture of you?" was met with extreme anger, and no answer. A simple chuckle, and "No, but I wish it was" would have ended the story right there.
In fact, even if you said, "Yes, it was me. I honestly don't know how someone got that picture" this would have gone away very quickly again.
The questions about getting the FBI or some other agency involved were handled perfectly. Claiming it's harmless and a prank was an excellent defense... but seriously, 15 more seconds of handling that last question would have saved you a lot of ridicule. You were soooo close.