If you belive that the real cost of insurance has anything to do with the cost of actually insuring something, you're smoking dope.
Most insurance companies these days are little more than extortion fronts. Redline people that you believe will cost you extra, or if they're black or asian etc. Or, you're a homeowner, and have claimed one or two "acts of god" claims in the last five years - through no fault of your own - your insurance cancels you...why - cause they "predict" that you'll make more claims in the future! (Funny that - I was under the impression that insurance was for this specific purpose!)
Insurance companies want to make LOTS'O CASH, and raise rates faster than claims to actually impliment this strategy.
Sure, malpractice suits are on the rise in some fields of medicine - perhaps for many reasons, including gosh, an increase in malpractice. (By the way, my Father and siblings are ALL doctors, so I know my way around this argument! That's four doctors in the immediate family.) But a jury makes a decision about a "reasonable standard" or care. If the doc didn't follow a reasonable standard, they'll lose or settle. If they did, plaintiff and more importantly plaintiff's attorney will be out a bunch of time and energy. (Lawyers like to make money, so they try to lessen these types of experiences.)
Remember Enron, Global Crossing, Merreil Lynch (sp) etc? They wanted lots of dough, and weren't at all afraid to use sketchy moral and legal grounds to get said cash - insurance companies are in general not much different. They want the cash, but will do anything to keep themselves from actually having to perform the duties they were paid for...
Since when has any software vendor been sued (and lost) over the performance of their shrinkwrap software?
I you have a contract that VERY specifically specifies the functions it MUST perform, you MIGHT win. Otherwise just take it like a good consumer.
That's the problem with software "non-liability" - basically every manufacturer says - "oh, and it's not liable in ANY situation - you just paid us money to hold that piece of paper that gives you those effemoral rights to use the software, unless we say otherwise... If it doesn't work, or trashes your system (can you say Mcafee and 2000) too bad, we don't promise anything.
Or they could spend a few of those billions making secure code in the first place.
Pleeeeeze - it can't be that hard scanning your code for unchecked buffers! So I don't think that fixing the thing even after the fact would be that insanely difficult...
Lastly how about software liability?
The only time that MS really fixes things (or anyone else for that matter) will be when it costs them. When they have to go before a jury, and explain how they didn't use any due dilligence, and that that total system crash that took down the First Interstate Loan Center (Portland Oregon) in the early-mid 90's for hours and hours every week was their own fault. (As I recall it was an undocumented switch in the TCP stack that fixed the SNA session dying thing...) [I know, I had friends that worked there then - NT 3.1, 3.5? dunno]
When companies no longer can shield themselves from liability by claiming that software is _SO_ different than the rest of the known world, they'll actually do somthing - till then, just get ready to take it like a good consumer!
This is like saying "Well, they provide jobs" when someone complains about working conditions, sweatshops etc.
Sure, Pimps provide jobs. Hey, infact even, child pornographers provide jobs - but that's obviously a job not worth having. So, that's just a crock.
Simply having done something innovative (which BillG hasn't) or that made someones life easier isn't an escape from your overall actions.
The Mafia creates wealth and ease for quite a few people...but that doesn't excuse how they run their lives.
BillG ran a company that used sharp business deals (think Stacker, think IBM and OS/2, think Sybase etc etc etc...these are only more recent examples) and great marketing (sharp deals are 80% great marketing 20%) along with a monopoly on the OS (what other general use OS was available for PC's from the mid-late 80's to today?) to gain the position they are in now.
You can speculate that this was for the general good of the population. I'll counter that if the market had real transparancy and open-ness, the gains for the consumer would have been even greater. Just as no Mafia would produce greater wealth for all - just not as much for the few... Of course, we'll never know - I just know that eventually, what's moral and ethical is also best for me and you. We'll both do better in the long run.
While Gates has surpassed the Carnegies, Rockefellers and Fords in total dollars given to charity, philanthropic experts say comparisons to givers from the Gilded Age may be unfair.
"Yes, it's more money than anyone has ever put into a foundation," Englehardt said. "Is it a larger percentage of his worth? Probably not." One of the things that makes comparisons to the Carnegies and Rockefellers difficult, explained Englehardt, is that they gave before the income tax, and thus tax deductions, was created.
"In real dollars, it's more than they gave. Relative to what it can do, it's probably smaller than what the Carnegies' or Rockefellers' money could do."
Ellen Lagamenn, a New York University history professor and expert on philanthropy, said comparisons between Gates and the late greats are premature.
"I don't think these comparisons at the moment are very accurate or apt because Bill Gates is at the beginning of his philanthropic life," she said. "We have a whole record for Carnegie and Rockefeller. I think the issue is what Bill Gates is doing and how sensibly he is doing it. It seems to me he is heading in the right direction."
While benefactors such as Carnegie, Mellon and Rockefeller represented the burgeoning wealth arising from oil, steel and railroads, those of the late 20th Century are bearing gifts from the revolutionary age of information technology. And, like Rockefeller, Gates stands accused of being a monopolist.
Gates' $750 million gift to the Global Fund for Children's Vaccines came less than three weeks after United States District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled that Microsoft used its monopoly power to thwart competition. The ruling was seen as a threat to Microsoft stock, but share prices rebounded after Jackson appointed a federal judge to mediate between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors.
In a percentage of total wealth, it's not the same.
Also, many of the "generous" givers - i.e. Standard Oil (Rockafeller) gave very generously to help cover up their image of anti-consumer/anti-competitive greed. So, from that angle, BG fits right in.
Go do some research - most of these scumbags only give to help "reinvent" their image.
Gates may give, but look at the actions of the firm he ran. If you think that'll help re-invigorate his image with me, you been smoking somthing...
So, the origional poster was right! "Bzzzt - you win a years supply of toilet paper..." Cheers!
But fair use would allow you to "break" the protection to backup the work (PDF) or to move it to another device. These are not copyright infringements.
The facts are, that the DMCA doesn't make any exception for uses that wouldn't infringe copyright. If it's a circumvention device, it's illegal.
As we can see, only selective enforcement of this law will keep it around for even a short period of time. But, eventually, more and more draconian enforement will follow, and people will tire of such laws - and all this provided it doesn't fail in a real test in the courts. Something like Felton et al.
What I see David Packard as crying over was NOT HIS dreams or needs, but the EMPLOYEES of HP.
If he is right, HP will probably be a dying company. One that was great fun to work for from all accounts. It had upper-management that required respect for the employees and that rolled downhill...all the way to the lowest rungs of the company.
As Eccl. in the bible says... I paraphrase. "It's all been done before. You'll never REALLY do anything new. But the one thing you can have some solace in...Your work. Do a good job, and take pride in it."
HP allowed many to do that, while also working for someone else. That's a rare treat in todays mega-corp world.
That's why we're sad to see HP change and the old way die. Perhaps it's inevitable, but still sad.
It detracted from the reading. Bad enough that we loose the "visual" of the origional, but now have to suffer additional annoying things.
Perhaps we ought to replace choice visuals on that next chick or guy pick with URL's to explain what they're all about.
=Poster= Sorry, perhaps you meant well, but I'm sure that many of us would disagree.
Just some food for thought - do we really need to be fed mush all the time. A quick google search would have turned up the references quickly in any case for those that needed or wanted them.
Well, neglecting the tendency of MS to stuff everything in the OS... The OS vendor would supply an OS that actually did what most OS's do. Provide a layer to the hardware system. Additionally, it would provide a UI (Graphical/Character). There are a few basic other things an OS does, but that's basically it. The UI may have a HTML decoder built it, but frankly I don't think it should. That's an application space thing. But perhaps it ought to be an OS/UI thing - I dunno. But the larger browser? Certainly that's an app.
My basic premise, is that the OS and apps should be very separated. Otherwise, it causes no end of grief.
In networking we have the layered OSI model. It slows down performance some, but the advantages FAR outweigh the disadvantages. It allows us to modify any layer internally, as long as we don't change the way it interacts with the layers above and below. It allows you to use any medium such as fiber, wireless, coax, TP, or carrier pigeon if you wish.
MS has done a very poor job technically with the OS. The fact that they're trying to "integrate" the whole browser/OE into the OS is just another example of that.
"The fact that Margaret tortures little kittens for fun really has no bearing on her skills as a babysitter..."
The fact that MS has a very long history of immoral and illegal acts SHOULD color the judgement of us when we look at what they say. You would be an IDIOT if you didn't. Perhaps it can't be that way in a court of law, but it sure as heck will be in my book.
If you act like a dick 90% of the time (I'm not referring to you...) and something you say could be construed as offensive, it's reasonable to figure that you're just being your normal self, a prick.
Sure, I might get hit by a metorite, but it's not bloody likely. Sure, MS could be just a innocent sheep, and we're all just way out of like, but again, it isn't very bloody likely!
Frankly, I think MS SHOULD have done this long ago.
I get REALLY tired chasing things down for an APP because it got installed into the OS.
Here are the rules the OS should have imposed LONG ago.
ALL DLL's MUST reside in the application directory, unless the DLL is supplied with the OS. Any files the APP needs, that are not included in a default install of the OS must be in a subdirectory of the applications, NOT the OS.
All INI and Registry additions must be merged and applied on the fly. (This would be a modification of the OS)
This would make "imaging" a whole lot easier. Just copy the app directory and all subdirectories, and you've got Word/Excel etc.
Sure, the API would have to be robust and stable, and applications might be a bit larger because you'ld have to include your own tools/dlls.
But hey, it's not like most Windows developers ever heard of profiling their code anyway! It's serious bloatware, starting with the OS, and it just rolls downhill from there.
Besides, just deal with this like everything else. More disk, more RAM, more CPU. For lower support curves, (it would make life a whole lot easier) the additional hardware costs would be trivial.
Sure, I REALLY WISH the horrible static linking problems you all claim would kill us WOULD ACTUALLY happen. From a system admin perspective, it would make life a whole lot easier!
The OS OUGHT to stay the OS. Programs don't add things to the OS. They add them to their own directory, and merge them at run time when needed.
No more DLL hell.
I regularly rebuild Windows OS's, and the cost of doing do over the life of the machine, for many users exceeds the cost of the machine. Backup all data. Reinstall OS. (Think we're done, Oh No, we're just starting!) Install apps A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc. Reconfigure all apps. etc. Many many hours later, you're done. (Imaging really doesn't work in a one-off world...)
A modular OS as I describe above...
-Backup all directories other than the OS. -Reinstall OS. -Copy back directories. -Do minor configuration to apps and desktop -Go golfing for the 4 hours more you would have spent otherwise.
Here's how I judge the world in general and this dispute in particular.
I see Michael post, and he generally seems like a jerk. Sort of like a mini version of that Dick (Morrell) that does smoothwall. (And numerous other self important primidonna types that I've seen)
Seth, on the other hand, posts reasonable, thoughtful comments. Seems generally well thought out and reasonable. Self deprecating etc...
Make your own conclusions, but when I'm faced with conflicting facts, I start looking at the actions of the parties in the general world.
Seth looks a whole lot more attractive to me.
Perhaps you like Michael, but then again, "Birds of a feather..."
about this, is that the SW companies want to treat the EULA like a contract. But there's no negotiation. The power of the parties is vastly different. Take it or leave it contracts often don't stand.
I'm obviously not a lawyer, but these are points that have come out in court, when contracts are challanged.
What's so interesting about this, is that it gives the user a chance at negotiation. Sure, it's a farce, but so is the "contract" the EULA tries to put in place. (There's no consideration - you bought the software - money for package - there's the consideration. Now, you must click the EULA too? There's no consideration (transfer of something valuable) happening then, so no contract can ensue.
So changing the contract to something else isn't any more crack-pipe'ish then the usual EULA.
Lastly, have you ever read any of those EULA's? I'd bet that 10 lawyers would come up with 10 significantly different interpretations of the "contract." That doesn't even take into account what the courts might do. So, reading your own EULA is almost futile, and who can afford to get an expert legal opinion on 10+ pages of legaleese for every software product they buy.
EULA's need to get challenged in court, and struck. UCITA needs to die an ugly and nasty death. With UCITA, EULA's will have the real power of law, not just a sham that the SW companies want you to believe.
Make sure you discuss UCITA with your STATE representatives. UCITA has to pass in your state for it to make it into UCC. You might even consider working to pass laws that provide protections against vendors who are (or will be) in UCITA states.
Sheesh - a TDMA for fiber can tell you not only the quality of the cable and terminations, but also the distance to any faults!
(Believe me, I've got a OmniScanner for copper and I'm itching for Fiber - i just can't justify the cost yet. Troubleshooting cable run problems is really a breeze! And no guessing either. If the "Joes" you got installing fiber don't give you full certification results, you've not done your job in setting the specs for the job. And if your cable is getting damaged after install, either the cable didn't get installed right (protected runs etc) or you've got very careless people running around where they shouldn't.
Fiber is more difficult, but that's really because it hasn't reached critical mass. Once it starts getting installed in higher quantities, we'll see easy termination kits (there are some already).
The ranking system for stories should prevent modding for say, three hours, so all the really good comments could have fair play for Karma, as well as just good visibility.
It would also tend to depreciate the short "no-brainers" everyone posts in sort of a FP, but semi-thoughtout mentality.
I can't monitor/. continuously, and find it annoying that on a subject I have some decent input, the story is already 2+ hours old, and I might as well not even bother posting comments. They won't get any moderation, and almost never any discussion. That's too bad, because it tends to depreciate the value of/. (not that there's not enough of that these days anyhow...:( )
To recap, prevent moderation on a new story for at least 3 hours after it appears.
I've got some other good ideas at least IMHO too, but I can't remeber them right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets see...
35+
40+
20+
25+
30
---
150%
Methinks you need remedial math or reading skills, but probably BOTH!
Cheers!
Notice, it's the COST of insurance...
If you belive that the real cost of insurance has anything to do with the cost of actually insuring something, you're smoking dope.
Most insurance companies these days are little more than extortion fronts. Redline people that you believe will cost you extra, or if they're black or asian etc. Or, you're a homeowner, and have claimed one or two "acts of god" claims in the last five years - through no fault of your own - your insurance cancels you...why - cause they "predict" that you'll make more claims in the future! (Funny that - I was under the impression that insurance was for this specific purpose!)
Insurance companies want to make LOTS'O CASH, and raise rates faster than claims to actually impliment this strategy.
Sure, malpractice suits are on the rise in some fields of medicine - perhaps for many reasons, including gosh, an increase in malpractice. (By the way, my Father and siblings are ALL doctors, so I know my way around this argument! That's four doctors in the immediate family.) But a jury makes a decision about a "reasonable standard" or care. If the doc didn't follow a reasonable standard, they'll lose or settle. If they did, plaintiff and more importantly plaintiff's attorney will be out a bunch of time and energy. (Lawyers like to make money, so they try to lessen these types of experiences.)
Remember Enron, Global Crossing, Merreil Lynch (sp) etc? They wanted lots of dough, and weren't at all afraid to use sketchy moral and legal grounds to get said cash - insurance companies are in general not much different. They want the cash, but will do anything to keep themselves from actually having to perform the duties they were paid for...
Cheers!
And what kind of drugs have you been smoking?
Since when has any software vendor been sued (and lost) over the performance of their shrinkwrap software?
I you have a contract that VERY specifically specifies the functions it MUST perform, you MIGHT win. Otherwise just take it like a good consumer.
That's the problem with software "non-liability" - basically every manufacturer says - "oh, and it's not liable in ANY situation - you just paid us money to hold that piece of paper that gives you those effemoral rights to use the software, unless we say otherwise... If it doesn't work, or trashes your system (can you say Mcafee and 2000) too bad, we don't promise anything.
Cheers!
Or they could spend a few of those billions making secure code in the first place.
Pleeeeeze - it can't be that hard scanning your code for unchecked buffers! So I don't think that fixing the thing even after the fact would be that insanely difficult...
Lastly how about software liability?
The only time that MS really fixes things (or anyone else for that matter) will be when it costs them. When they have to go before a jury, and explain how they didn't use any due dilligence, and that that total system crash that took down the First Interstate Loan Center (Portland Oregon) in the early-mid 90's for hours and hours every week was their own fault. (As I recall it was an undocumented switch in the TCP stack that fixed the SNA session dying thing...) [I know, I had friends that worked there then - NT 3.1, 3.5? dunno]
When companies no longer can shield themselves from liability by claiming that software is _SO_ different than the rest of the known world, they'll actually do somthing - till then, just get ready to take it like a good consumer!
Cheers!
This is like saying "Well, they provide jobs" when someone complains about working conditions, sweatshops etc.
Sure, Pimps provide jobs. Hey, infact even, child pornographers provide jobs - but that's obviously a job not worth having. So, that's just a crock.
Simply having done something innovative (which BillG hasn't) or that made someones life easier isn't an escape from your overall actions.
The Mafia creates wealth and ease for quite a few people...but that doesn't excuse how they run their lives.
BillG ran a company that used sharp business deals (think Stacker, think IBM and OS/2, think Sybase etc etc etc...these are only more recent examples) and great marketing (sharp deals are 80% great marketing 20%) along with a monopoly on the OS (what other general use OS was available for PC's from the mid-late 80's to today?) to gain the position they are in now.
You can speculate that this was for the general good of the population. I'll counter that if the market had real transparancy and open-ness, the gains for the consumer would have been even greater. Just as no Mafia would produce greater wealth for all - just not as much for the few... Of course, we'll never know - I just know that eventually, what's moral and ethical is also best for me and you. We'll both do better in the long run.
Cheers!
From your link...
While Gates has surpassed the Carnegies, Rockefellers and Fords in total dollars given to charity, philanthropic experts say comparisons to givers from the Gilded Age may be unfair.
"Yes, it's more money than anyone has ever put into a foundation," Englehardt said. "Is it a larger percentage of his worth? Probably not." One of the things that makes comparisons to the Carnegies and Rockefellers difficult, explained Englehardt, is that they gave before the income tax, and thus tax deductions, was created.
"In real dollars, it's more than they gave. Relative to what it can do, it's probably smaller than what the Carnegies' or Rockefellers' money could do."
Ellen Lagamenn, a New York University history professor and expert on philanthropy, said comparisons between Gates and the late greats are premature.
"I don't think these comparisons at the moment are very accurate or apt because Bill Gates is at the beginning of his philanthropic life," she said. "We have a whole record for Carnegie and Rockefeller. I think the issue is what Bill Gates is doing and how sensibly he is doing it. It seems to me he is heading in the right direction."
While benefactors such as Carnegie, Mellon and Rockefeller represented the burgeoning wealth arising from oil, steel and railroads, those of the late 20th Century are bearing gifts from the revolutionary age of information technology. And, like Rockefeller, Gates stands accused of being a monopolist.
Gates' $750 million gift to the Global Fund for Children's Vaccines came less than three weeks after United States District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled that Microsoft used its monopoly power to thwart competition. The ruling was seen as a threat to Microsoft stock, but share prices rebounded after Jackson appointed a federal judge to mediate between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors.
In a percentage of total wealth, it's not the same.
Also, many of the "generous" givers - i.e. Standard Oil (Rockafeller) gave very generously to help cover up their image of anti-consumer/anti-competitive greed. So, from that angle, BG fits right in.
Go do some research - most of these scumbags only give to help "reinvent" their image.
Gates may give, but look at the actions of the firm he ran. If you think that'll help re-invigorate his image with me, you been smoking somthing...
So, the origional poster was right! "Bzzzt - you win a years supply of toilet paper..."
Cheers!
But fair use would allow you to "break" the protection to backup the work (PDF) or to move it to another device. These are not copyright infringements.
The facts are, that the DMCA doesn't make any exception for uses that wouldn't infringe copyright. If it's a circumvention device, it's illegal.
As we can see, only selective enforcement of this law will keep it around for even a short period of time. But, eventually, more and more draconian enforement will follow, and people will tire of such laws - and all this provided it doesn't fail in a real test in the courts. Something like Felton et al.
Cheers!
Just remember your words in 24-36 months.
We will find HP on the dung heap - and you sir will need to find some crow to eat!
(Or perhaps I will, but I doubt it - just remember - you thought the merger was "good")
Cheers!
What I see David Packard as crying over was NOT HIS dreams or needs, but the EMPLOYEES of HP.
If he is right, HP will probably be a dying company. One that was great fun to work for from all accounts. It had upper-management that required respect for the employees and that rolled downhill...all the way to the lowest rungs of the company.
As Eccl. in the bible says...
I paraphrase.
"It's all been done before. You'll never REALLY do anything new. But the one thing you can have some solace in...Your work. Do a good job, and take pride in it."
HP allowed many to do that, while also working for someone else. That's a rare treat in todays mega-corp world.
That's why we're sad to see HP change and the old way die. Perhaps it's inevitable, but still sad.
Cheers!
Remind George Bush (both of them) that Saddam - he's our friend - well, he was the "enemy of our enemy" right!?
How about Manuel Noriega or the Marcos of the Phillipines.
The whole "enemy of our enemy" methodology is in fact the MOST STUPID IDEA I HAVE EVER HEARD!
If that's how you pick your friends, you need to put down the crack pipe.
Sorry, that may be harsh, but sometimes the truth hurts.
Cheers!
Thanks - you spoke well!
I found the "visual" link annoying.
It detracted from the reading. Bad enough that we loose the "visual" of the origional, but now have to suffer additional annoying things.
Perhaps we ought to replace choice visuals on that next chick or guy pick with URL's to explain what they're all about.
=Poster=
Sorry, perhaps you meant well, but I'm sure that many of us would disagree.
Just some food for thought - do we really need to be fed mush all the time. A quick google search would have turned up the references quickly in any case for those that needed or wanted them.
Thanks for the article, hold the links please!
Cheers!
Perhaps you think it's a "gratuitous slam" but I don't.
It might not be the topic at hand, but us Americans are very beholden to such practices.
How do you think your Levi's Dockers got made? (I'm wearing a pair right now...so I'm as guilty as the next guy/gal.)
Now how about your Nike shoes?
Perhaps we're basically forced to this way of life, but I for one, if there were a way,to guarantee someone has a decent job, would pay more.
Cheers!
Well, neglecting the tendency of MS to stuff everything in the OS... The OS vendor would supply an OS that actually did what most OS's do. Provide a layer to the hardware system. Additionally, it would provide a UI (Graphical/Character). There are a few basic other things an OS does, but that's basically it. The UI may have a HTML decoder built it, but frankly I don't think it should. That's an application space thing. But perhaps it ought to be an OS/UI thing - I dunno. But the larger browser? Certainly that's an app.
My basic premise, is that the OS and apps should be very separated. Otherwise, it causes no end of grief.
In networking we have the layered OSI model. It slows down performance some, but the advantages FAR outweigh the disadvantages. It allows us to modify any layer internally, as long as we don't change the way it interacts with the layers above and below. It allows you to use any medium such as fiber, wireless, coax, TP, or carrier pigeon if you wish.
MS has done a very poor job technically with the OS. The fact that they're trying to "integrate" the whole browser/OE into the OS is just another example of that.
Cheers!
And you are a COMPLETE moron and COWARD!
Cheers!
Flaimbait? Surely you can do better than that - Mr Crack Moderator!
Offtopic? Possibly...
Cheers!
Someone else said this recently.
"The fact that Margaret tortures little kittens for fun really has no bearing on her skills as a babysitter..."
The fact that MS has a very long history of immoral and illegal acts SHOULD color the judgement of us when we look at what they say. You would be an IDIOT if you didn't. Perhaps it can't be that way in a court of law, but it sure as heck will be in my book.
If you act like a dick 90% of the time (I'm not referring to you...) and something you say could be construed as offensive, it's reasonable to figure that you're just being your normal self, a prick.
Sure, I might get hit by a metorite, but it's not bloody likely. Sure, MS could be just a innocent sheep, and we're all just way out of like, but again, it isn't very bloody likely!
Cheers!
Frankly, I think MS SHOULD have done this long ago.
I get REALLY tired chasing things down for an APP because it got installed into the OS.
Here are the rules the OS should have imposed LONG ago.
ALL DLL's MUST reside in the application directory, unless the DLL is supplied with the OS. Any files the APP needs, that are not included in a default install of the OS must be in a subdirectory of the applications, NOT the OS.
All INI and Registry additions must be merged and applied on the fly. (This would be a modification of the OS)
This would make "imaging" a whole lot easier. Just copy the app directory and all subdirectories, and you've got Word/Excel etc.
Sure, the API would have to be robust and stable, and applications might be a bit larger because you'ld have to include your own tools/dlls.
But hey, it's not like most Windows developers ever heard of profiling their code anyway! It's serious bloatware, starting with the OS, and it just rolls downhill from there.
Besides, just deal with this like everything else. More disk, more RAM, more CPU. For lower support curves, (it would make life a whole lot easier) the additional hardware costs would be trivial.
Sure, I REALLY WISH the horrible static linking problems you all claim would kill us WOULD ACTUALLY happen. From a system admin perspective, it would make life a whole lot easier!
The OS OUGHT to stay the OS. Programs don't add things to the OS. They add them to their own directory, and merge them at run time when needed.
No more DLL hell.
I regularly rebuild Windows OS's, and the cost of doing do over the life of the machine, for many users exceeds the cost of the machine. Backup all data. Reinstall OS. (Think we're done, Oh No, we're just starting!) Install apps A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc. Reconfigure all apps. etc. Many many hours later, you're done. (Imaging really doesn't work in a one-off world...)
A modular OS as I describe above...
-Backup all directories other than the OS.
-Reinstall OS.
-Copy back directories.
-Do minor configuration to apps and desktop
-Go golfing for the 4 hours more you would have spent otherwise.
Cheers!
Here's how I judge the world in general and this dispute in particular.
I see Michael post, and he generally seems like a jerk. Sort of like a mini version of that Dick (Morrell) that does smoothwall. (And numerous other self important primidonna types that I've seen)
Seth, on the other hand, posts reasonable, thoughtful comments. Seems generally well thought out and reasonable. Self deprecating etc...
Make your own conclusions, but when I'm faced with conflicting facts, I start looking at the actions of the parties in the general world.
Seth looks a whole lot more attractive to me.
Perhaps you like Michael, but then again, "Birds of a feather..."
Cheers!
about this, is that the SW companies want to treat the EULA like a contract. But there's no negotiation. The power of the parties is vastly different. Take it or leave it contracts often don't stand.
I'm obviously not a lawyer, but these are points that have come out in court, when contracts are challanged.
What's so interesting about this, is that it gives the user a chance at negotiation. Sure, it's a farce, but so is the "contract" the EULA tries to put in place. (There's no consideration - you bought the software - money for package - there's the consideration. Now, you must click the EULA too? There's no consideration (transfer of something valuable) happening then, so no contract can ensue.
So changing the contract to something else isn't any more crack-pipe'ish then the usual EULA.
Lastly, have you ever read any of those EULA's? I'd bet that 10 lawyers would come up with 10 significantly different interpretations of the "contract." That doesn't even take into account what the courts might do. So, reading your own EULA is almost futile, and who can afford to get an expert legal opinion on 10+ pages of legaleese for every software product they buy.
EULA's need to get challenged in court, and struck. UCITA needs to die an ugly and nasty death. With UCITA, EULA's will have the real power of law, not just a sham that the SW companies want you to believe.
Make sure you discuss UCITA with your STATE representatives. UCITA has to pass in your state for it to make it into UCC. You might even consider working to pass laws that provide protections against vendors who are (or will be) in UCITA states.
Cheers!
Have you ever heard of cable testers?
Sheesh - a TDMA for fiber can tell you not only the quality of the cable and terminations, but also the distance to any faults!
(Believe me, I've got a OmniScanner for copper and I'm itching for Fiber - i just can't justify the cost yet. Troubleshooting cable run problems is really a breeze! And no guessing either. If the "Joes" you got installing fiber don't give you full certification results, you've not done your job in setting the specs for the job. And if your cable is getting damaged after install, either the cable didn't get installed right (protected runs etc) or you've got very careless people running around where they shouldn't.
Fiber is more difficult, but that's really because it hasn't reached critical mass. Once it starts getting installed in higher quantities, we'll see easy termination kits (there are some already).
Cheers!
Isn't it funny. Those of us who complain about moderation are communist pinkos...
Moderators, complaining about the "communist pinko" complainers, however are sainted heavenly beings!
Sheesh! Where's that crack pipe - perhaps it's make things easier to understand!
Cheers!
OT I know.
/. continuously, and find it annoying that on a subject I have some decent input, the story is already 2+ hours old, and I might as well not even bother posting comments. They won't get any moderation, and almost never any discussion. That's too bad, because it tends to depreciate the value of /. (not that there's not enough of that these days anyhow... :( )
The ranking system for stories should prevent modding for say, three hours, so all the really good comments could have fair play for Karma, as well as just good visibility.
It would also tend to depreciate the short "no-brainers" everyone posts in sort of a FP, but semi-thoughtout mentality.
I can't monitor
To recap, prevent moderation on a new story for at least 3 hours after it appears.
I've got some other good ideas at least IMHO too, but I can't remeber them right now.
Cheers!
Damn, I HATE Metallica, but when you put it that way, I guess it's my obligationt to help!
Where do you get this Napster thing anyway? Hey, I could start a spam mailing - get rich fast - Napster your way to riches!
It's for the children!
[VBG]
Cheers
Roger Pea-Brain Smith, the famed CEO of General Motors during the 80's & 90's once said at a board or stockholders meeting...
"We build the automobiles, and by god, the public will buy them!" (Actually not an exact quote, but you get the gist!)
I couldn't find a direct quote, but it was something very similar.
Ordinary people can still get hit by a meteorite too.
Sure, it isn't too probable, but it can happen.
Fortunatly, for me, I'm not planning to hold my breath, if that's alright with you.
I'll do what I can to try and change what I can, but I'm perfectly realistic about my chances, without large sums om money.
Cheers!