Hmm... I wonder if it is possible for a plug-in to trap mouse movements and invoke/ave the link pointed at but report back to the browser engine that something else happened. *face thinking*
Even with that, it's pretty easy for the rendering engine to know where the mouse is at any given moment (query the OS) and relate that back to the contents of the page. All without ever touching the code on the web page. That being said, reporting that information back to the web site or to Google directly would be pretty easy to spot.
If they sell you both together and warranty/support the pair then I see nothing wrong. If you change out part of it and then claim the whole is broken then why should it be their fault?
As another example, there are two main types of coolant in cars these days, if you use the wrong one your car will run for a little while and then die (in some cases). Is the the fault of the auto maker your car died when they specifically say "we designed this car for this type of coolant, don't use the other"?
Or a computer related issue. Let's say their OS accommodates a "slightly" defective BIOS that runs the fan too slow and makes the system overheat in some cases. The whole system (tech + BIOS + original OS) works fine, but your version (tech + BIOS + new OS) dies a horrible, overheated death. Their fault? Again, they are more than willing to support and fix any issues arising from the original trio.
I'm all for slapping a company for defective hardware or software, but if they make up for it with a good warranty and good support then it is forgivable, within reason. Now if they specifically designed in a flaw to trap you if you change something, you might have a case. Even then, if they support it as advertised and they warn against substitutions then you may not have a case.
I personally feel that companies have a right to sell a product that ties an OS with a device if they choose (Apple, IBM, Microsoft, doesn't matter). Just because something has a CPU capable of running other software doesn't mean the purchaser has the inherent right to modify at will and still be supported under a warranty. And just because that same company also sells the various components separately shouldn't automatically mean that the tied or bundled combination should somehow magically be treated as separate products again. On the other hand, if a company offers an new version of the OS as a separate product that can be installed by the "bundle user" then all bets could be off again (depending on the terms, possibly).
Users should have the right to do as they choose with the understanding that it can void the warranty. Don't like the conditions then buy another product or negotiate another deal.
To sum up my position:
* Seller should have the right to bundle products and warranty them as a whole, not as parts * Buyer should have the right to modify their bundle (device and OS) as they choose, within the limits of the warranty or risk voiding that warranty
Now that the site has all of this press, it will be a LOT harder for "the powers that be" to do anything about it. If they close the site, a new one opens within hours or days. If they manipulate the site contents then they get called out by a thousand other news agencies and websites. About the only thing a government can do is to attempt to strong arm them or reduce everyone's freedom of speech.
What I meant to say was replacing it with a different engine (something other than the stock engine). And unless your engine has a separate warranty and/or you have it replaced by someone certified to do so by the auto maker, then you could very easily void the warranty of your engine and/or car.
I think you would find it very difficult to find any car warranty written in such a way that would not be violated by removing the engine from the car except through some action that was also covered by the warranty. I think you would also find it very difficult to find a court that would rule in your favor in such a case.
Is IBM preventing people from writing/porting an OS for/to their zSeries machines?
What it boils down to is that people don't want to buy IBM's expensive hardware (which subsidizes their software investment) but still want to buy their software? Did Steve Jobs ever work for IBM?
But seriously, the sell the hardware with your choice of supported operating systems, some at additional cost. I'm not sure how that supports someone's "right" to run the OS on any hardware platform they choose (via emulation or any other means).
Not arbitrarily. There are criteria for that. In the EU, this isn't the first bundling issue: Microsoft was forced to offer Windows in a special version without the MediaPlayer, and last year an investigation concerning browsers was settled with the introduction of a browser choice dialog box. Ironically, IBM itself lobbied against Microsoft in those contexts.
Those are different cases, almost entirely. IBM has always sold their hardware with their OS software and has always dominated mainframes. Likewise, they have never offered them as separate products (at least that I'm aware of). Microsoft, once in a dominant position, used every dirty tactic to block out attacks on that dominance by tying a version of competing software with their dominant OS, bundling it for "free", and then squashing any hopes at profit by someone else. They took previously separate products and tied them tightly into their operating system and THEN claimed they couldn't remove them without breaking the OS.
The bad thing is not to sell it together -- it's if customers who only want one are forced to buy the other as well, especially if one or both of them are market-dominating products.
If both together is the product then why SHOULD a customer be able to buy one and not the other? Can you could walk into an auto dealership and buy half a car that was already whole? If they say no are you somehow entitled to be able to make your arbitrary purchase? Can I walk into a grocery store and say I want to buy a product but not its packaging? I can, but they don't have to sell it to me. So why in this case should any company selling software + hardware be forced sell them separately?
The mainframe business is unique, but especially if you have hugbe amounts of mission-critical legacy code, it's easier said than done that you could rewrite it all for some other system.
It is anything but unique. Companies have lived and died buy their technology choices as long as there has been technology. This is not an excuse to force a company to split their product in half and sell you only the half you want.
I believe I understand what you mean here, but there was a time when they didn't really have the choice you may be thinking of, and from an antitrust perspective, imperfect decision-making by customers must (within reason) be considered a market reality. That doesn't give IBM the right to squeeze those customers to no end.
I agree that squeezing customers should be frowned upon, but seriously, companies putting all of their eggs into one basket need to face the consequences when that basket is dropped. IBM has been doing the same crap for DECADES. This is not a recent development and any company claiming otherwise is as blind as their product choice.
Agreed, but what does that have to do with bundling software with hardware? Are you suggesting that people can imply some divide between two parts of the same product and then arbitrarily force a company to comply? Why is software and hardware sold together (both relying on each other) such a bad thing for a company to claim as a single product?
I am NOT arguing for or against the antitrust case, I am pointing out that there is an ever increasing population of people that seem to think every combination of software + hardware sold as a product entitles them to be able to modify the software component and still have the company support the hardware.
There ARE alternatives to mainframes out there. There are alternatives to programming for one. If companies don't like how IBM has been running things (virtually the same way decades, which is to say protectionist) then they should have been thinking of alternatives long ago instead of continually locking themselves into this situation. That old adage of, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." applies nicely here.
Not likely... forcing a company to support (for free) something you willingly broke through modification would be pretty stupid.
Where exactly did I imply there were no alternatives to my scenario? That was my entire original post. If you didn't break it then my post did not apply.
If you didn't break it then I agree with your assumption, however I have to ask, with whom does the burden of proof lie?
Then you didn't break it through modification as my post was talking about. But if there was software in place to account for a hardware defect and that software was modified that later led to a complete hardware failure of some sort, then who is to blame? If the company upheld their warranty for the "defective hardware + corrective software" then they are doing right by the consumer, at least as far as I'm concerned.
So let me ask this question... are they selling you the device or the device plus the software? I would think they are selling you the complete package and would hope they be held accountable to that whole package, but not to each part on its own. If the latter is what you are after then be prepared for a fight. It would be like someone replacing the engine in their car with another one of their making and then asking the auto manufacturer to still uphold the warranty. Or maybe someone else buys the old engine and puts it in another car and wants the warranty on that, too. Where does it end?
If YOU were a device manufacturer that had some software element to it, would you want to have to pay for and support everyone's experimental whim? Of course you wouldn't.
I'm all for the right to modify without artificial limitations, but at your own risk. If you can't handle the risk then don't do the deed.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... I wonder if it is possible for a plug-in to trap mouse movements and invoke/ave the link pointed at but report back to the browser engine that something else happened. *face thinking*
Even with that, it's pretty easy for the rendering engine to know where the mouse is at any given moment (query the OS) and relate that back to the contents of the page. All without ever touching the code on the web page. That being said, reporting that information back to the web site or to Google directly would be pretty easy to spot.
He suffers from premature clicking. There's an app for that, but he's too embarrassed to buy it.
Not if I install the latest version of MouseBlocker+!
If they sell you both together and warranty/support the pair then I see nothing wrong. If you change out part of it and then claim the whole is broken then why should it be their fault?
As another example, there are two main types of coolant in cars these days, if you use the wrong one your car will run for a little while and then die (in some cases). Is the the fault of the auto maker your car died when they specifically say "we designed this car for this type of coolant, don't use the other"?
Or a computer related issue. Let's say their OS accommodates a "slightly" defective BIOS that runs the fan too slow and makes the system overheat in some cases. The whole system (tech + BIOS + original OS) works fine, but your version (tech + BIOS + new OS) dies a horrible, overheated death. Their fault? Again, they are more than willing to support and fix any issues arising from the original trio.
I'm all for slapping a company for defective hardware or software, but if they make up for it with a good warranty and good support then it is forgivable, within reason. Now if they specifically designed in a flaw to trap you if you change something, you might have a case. Even then, if they support it as advertised and they warn against substitutions then you may not have a case.
I personally feel that companies have a right to sell a product that ties an OS with a device if they choose (Apple, IBM, Microsoft, doesn't matter). Just because something has a CPU capable of running other software doesn't mean the purchaser has the inherent right to modify at will and still be supported under a warranty. And just because that same company also sells the various components separately shouldn't automatically mean that the tied or bundled combination should somehow magically be treated as separate products again. On the other hand, if a company offers an new version of the OS as a separate product that can be installed by the "bundle user" then all bets could be off again (depending on the terms, possibly).
Users should have the right to do as they choose with the understanding that it can void the warranty. Don't like the conditions then buy another product or negotiate another deal.
To sum up my position:
* Seller should have the right to bundle products and warranty them as a whole, not as parts
* Buyer should have the right to modify their bundle (device and OS) as they choose, within the limits of the warranty or risk voiding that warranty
The trouble with outright killing him (however discretely) is that he becomes a martyr. I relate all of this to the old days for Phil Zimmerman.
Now that the site has all of this press, it will be a LOT harder for "the powers that be" to do anything about it. If they close the site, a new one opens within hours or days. If they manipulate the site contents then they get called out by a thousand other news agencies and websites. About the only thing a government can do is to attempt to strong arm them or reduce everyone's freedom of speech.
Does a Fleshlight run iOS? I know it works with an ARM processor... ;)
If you didn't hand type it with ALT-#### codes then it doesn't count. :p
What I meant to say was replacing it with a different engine (something other than the stock engine). And unless your engine has a separate warranty and/or you have it replaced by someone certified to do so by the auto maker, then you could very easily void the warranty of your engine and/or car.
That one's due on 12/21/2012.
I think you would find it very difficult to find any car warranty written in such a way that would not be violated by removing the engine from the car except through some action that was also covered by the warranty. I think you would also find it very difficult to find a court that would rule in your favor in such a case.
I'm fearing naked Tauren and Draenei. But honestly, there are a great many humans that I would fear seeing naked, too. :p
That's God damn it, God damn it! :p
Is IBM preventing people from writing/porting an OS for/to their zSeries machines?
What it boils down to is that people don't want to buy IBM's expensive hardware (which subsidizes their software investment) but still want to buy their software? Did Steve Jobs ever work for IBM?
But seriously, the sell the hardware with your choice of supported operating systems, some at additional cost. I'm not sure how that supports someone's "right" to run the OS on any hardware platform they choose (via emulation or any other means).
The patch that removes clothing completely from that game will bring the entire Internet to a standstill.
Also consider all the people who bought Windows ME...
It probably surprises the people that thought they could get away with presenting bogus data. ;)
So how is selling a software product that only runs on your hardware product not the same as bundling hardware with software?
Not arbitrarily. There are criteria for that. In the EU, this isn't the first bundling issue: Microsoft was forced to offer Windows in a special version without the MediaPlayer, and last year an investigation concerning browsers was settled with the introduction of a browser choice dialog box. Ironically, IBM itself lobbied against Microsoft in those contexts.
Those are different cases, almost entirely. IBM has always sold their hardware with their OS software and has always dominated mainframes. Likewise, they have never offered them as separate products (at least that I'm aware of). Microsoft, once in a dominant position, used every dirty tactic to block out attacks on that dominance by tying a version of competing software with their dominant OS, bundling it for "free", and then squashing any hopes at profit by someone else. They took previously separate products and tied them tightly into their operating system and THEN claimed they couldn't remove them without breaking the OS.
The bad thing is not to sell it together -- it's if customers who only want one are forced to buy the other as well, especially if one or both of them are market-dominating products.
If both together is the product then why SHOULD a customer be able to buy one and not the other? Can you could walk into an auto dealership and buy half a car that was already whole? If they say no are you somehow entitled to be able to make your arbitrary purchase? Can I walk into a grocery store and say I want to buy a product but not its packaging? I can, but they don't have to sell it to me. So why in this case should any company selling software + hardware be forced sell them separately?
The mainframe business is unique, but especially if you have hugbe amounts of mission-critical legacy code, it's easier said than done that you could rewrite it all for some other system.
It is anything but unique. Companies have lived and died buy their technology choices as long as there has been technology. This is not an excuse to force a company to split their product in half and sell you only the half you want.
I believe I understand what you mean here, but there was a time when they didn't really have the choice you may be thinking of, and from an antitrust perspective, imperfect decision-making by customers must (within reason) be considered a market reality. That doesn't give IBM the right to squeeze those customers to no end.
I agree that squeezing customers should be frowned upon, but seriously, companies putting all of their eggs into one basket need to face the consequences when that basket is dropped. IBM has been doing the same crap for DECADES. This is not a recent development and any company claiming otherwise is as blind as their product choice.
Agreed, but what does that have to do with bundling software with hardware? Are you suggesting that people can imply some divide between two parts of the same product and then arbitrarily force a company to comply? Why is software and hardware sold together (both relying on each other) such a bad thing for a company to claim as a single product?
I am NOT arguing for or against the antitrust case, I am pointing out that there is an ever increasing population of people that seem to think every combination of software + hardware sold as a product entitles them to be able to modify the software component and still have the company support the hardware.
There ARE alternatives to mainframes out there. There are alternatives to programming for one. If companies don't like how IBM has been running things (virtually the same way decades, which is to say protectionist) then they should have been thinking of alternatives long ago instead of continually locking themselves into this situation. That old adage of, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." applies nicely here.
Not likely... forcing a company to support (for free) something you willingly broke through modification would be pretty stupid.
Where exactly did I imply there were no alternatives to my scenario? That was my entire original post. If you didn't break it then my post did not apply.
If you didn't break it then I agree with your assumption, however I have to ask, with whom does the burden of proof lie?
Why is there this ever increasing hatred of selling hardware linked with software?
Are cars going to have to untie their monitoring software so anyone can just mod it to do what they want? What about airplanes? Where does it end?
Are companies not allowed to combine ANYTHING with software and then claim a lock down on the software? Is that really where this is headed?
Then you didn't break it through modification as my post was talking about. But if there was software in place to account for a hardware defect and that software was modified that later led to a complete hardware failure of some sort, then who is to blame? If the company upheld their warranty for the "defective hardware + corrective software" then they are doing right by the consumer, at least as far as I'm concerned.
So let me ask this question... are they selling you the device or the device plus the software? I would think they are selling you the complete package and would hope they be held accountable to that whole package, but not to each part on its own. If the latter is what you are after then be prepared for a fight. It would be like someone replacing the engine in their car with another one of their making and then asking the auto manufacturer to still uphold the warranty. Or maybe someone else buys the old engine and puts it in another car and wants the warranty on that, too. Where does it end?
If YOU were a device manufacturer that had some software element to it, would you want to have to pay for and support everyone's experimental whim? Of course you wouldn't.
I'm all for the right to modify without artificial limitations, but at your own risk. If you can't handle the risk then don't do the deed.