The definition of assault varies by state, actually. In many US states merely the threat of physical violence constitutes assault: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault A good lawyer could make an argument for assault in these cases.
Regardless,
Truth be told, if you go to a store, they have a right to look into your shopping bags to make sure you're not stealing their merchandise. is simply bullocks. Nothing gives them that right, unless they have a reasonable belief that you have stolen from them, and even then, you can demand that the police be present for such a search.
When you say it this way, it brings up a somewhat obvious (and likely tired) point: hardware companies rely on Microsoft to add as much bloat to their OSs as possible. If you're only using a computer for browsing and documents, then with a small OS it would probably take less than $300 to buy the hardware required today. Perhaps, but most of those casual users don't buy the new Microsoft OS when it comes out. They buy a new computer when their old one doesn't work like it should. The category of people who buy the newest OS off the shelf is limited to enthusiasts (either tinkerers who want to play with the latest toys or people with specific application needs, like gamers who need features that MS could have easily regressed (DX10), and who are also likely to constantly upgrade in search of that extra 2fps.)
But with as OSs add bloat, you need a bigger machine, even if none of the cycle-burning features are ever used. This ensures that the price of a modern, casual-user's CPU hovers where it is, as opposed to decreasing as it used to. I think it's at an equilibrium point right now. You can buy PCs off the shelf for $299 if you wait for a sale, or online most of the time if you shop around. It's hard to imagine the price getting much lower for new equipment, regardless of its power. Of course, if you want to run the newest whiz-bang featureset of Vista, you're going to be paying more, but for those casual users, it's probably something they can do without.
Why? Canada already does this (with taxes generated from blank media sales), only they haven't taken the extra step to shut the media cartels up about all the p2p that goes on up there.
You could even change it a bit. Only charge the tax on Internet access exceeding a certain speed. Moms and pops don't need 9Mbps down--let's face it, 99% of reasons for a home user to get that speed is to pirate.
I think that copyright is important, but too powerful right now. It's far too long to be useful, and even if it was shorter, laws like the DMCA effectively make it permanent (I can't copy my DVD, even after the copyright expires, because the tools to do so are still illegal.)
The way to deal with copyright is to watermark everything. That way, if it gets loose onto the Internet, the copyright owner knows who to contact. Let P2P thrive, let me view my content on any player I wish to use, and sue the biggest infringers. It's pretty much win/win. Only the content providers aren't happy enough with that--they want to win, and they want everyone else to lose.
As a human being, I should not be treated as a criminal by default. It's a small thing to show my receipt at Circuit City when there's no one else trying to leave at the same time, and it costs me mere seconds. It's quite another at a larger store like Fry's, where there is often a line to exit the store because of the loss-prevention clerk checking everyone's bags. Back before I realized how stupid it was, I stood in line for 5 minutes one time (from the first time that I looked at my watch--I'd been standing in line a bit longer before that) waiting for the employee to check everyone's bags.
This guy...probably wasn't in those circumstances. By his own words, it sounds like he was looking for a fight. But very minor changes in the situation could have made a huge difference. But if there had been a long line, and I tried to just walk out of the store, I'd probably suspect some sort of challenge (just like this guy suspected it when there was no apparent line.) That doesn't mean that I'm doing anything wrong.
They can bar you from returning, however, and this is the appropriate measure to take if they feel that you aren't someone with whom they wish to do business. If you come back, you are trespassing, and they should call the police.
They should not detain you, bar you from leaving, block your car in the parking lot, etc.
The 4th amendment may not apply, but that doesn't mean that the private entity has a right to search you, either. Only under the terms of a contract would that really apply. Otherwise, it could probably be considered assault.
The problem is the definition of "reasonable suspicion." These companies search every single person who leaves their store with a bag. If they have a reasonable suspicion that each of them shoplifted, then there's something wrong.
I think that you misunderstood. Returning the items is a way to show the store that you won't be treated like a criminal, and to deprive them of your business. They can't force you to return them, and they can't search you without consent (in most cases).
There's a lot of misinformation spreading around here.
Shopkeeper's Privilege is what allows businesses to search you, or to detain you until the police arrive. It only applies if they have a good reason to suspect that you are shoplifting. Generally speaking, though, the rules protect consumers as much as they protect the stores. The store must maintain visual contact with you at all times, from the time of the suspected shoplifting until you leave. Otherwise, they lose a lot of their power.
You don't lose your rights just because you set foot on private property. However, the store can kick you out and demand that you never return if you don't follow their policies. If you have already purchased your goods, this won't void the purchase.
The only plugin I saw that allowed that required that it be an FTP server. I'd just as soon be able to encrypt my login credentials, thankyouverymuch. Maybe it's changed since then.
Anyway, you're trusting Opera, already. You're trusting them with your web browsing, and with your login details (for sites where you log in) and with your CC information (when you buy something online through Opera.) I don't see what the issue is.
From Win95 to Win98 to Win2000 to WinXP, I've seen nothing but stability and security improvements. Vista has some security improvements, too, but in my experience, it isn't any more stable than XP. What's also come with every single new release of Windows is a changed UI, more eye-candy, and features that many geeks find useless.
That doesn't mean that they're useless to everyone.
Part of the issue is that you're focusing on the operating system. Windows is really quite a bit more than that--it's an operating environment (or a desktop environment, as GNOME/KDE are described.) This means that they aren't just there to provide a framework for performing tasks--the operating environment performs tasks on your behalf, provides feedback, allows the user access to information in a subtle, yet useful way (many OS X widgets, for example, and whatever Microsoft is calling their clone of it in Vista.)
In the Unix world, we separate the operating system (kernel) from the shell (bash/ksh/whatever) from the window maanger (metacity/fluxbox/xwm) from the desktop environment (GNOME/KDE). This separation allows for immense flexibility. I can mix-and-match flavors, and even eliminate some of these layers entirely, depending upon my needs.
Windows, however, caters to the mass market. It needs consistency in order to maintain its marketshare, while simultaneously requiring each version to have a distinct look in order to differentiate itself from the earlier versions. It has to be everything to everyone in order to keep existing users and attract new ones. It makes sense to throw in as much stuff as you can, so that people will want to use their product.
Most people buying a computer will use it for the Internet (browsing, email) and maybe for creating documents and managing finances. Yes, they could do this on a 10 year old machine. The only reason to upgrade, then, is for the new UI or because their old computer broke. In either case, they aren't really losing anything. They're gaining more cycles in their new computer, and they're getting an OS that uses those cycles. If their tasks don't change, their CPU power needs (over what the OS requires) probably haven't changed, either.
In more specialized circumstances, yes, it matters. And that's part of the reason that new OS are adopted fairly slowly in the business world. Not only do we want to ensure that the change is as easy as possible, but we want to make sure that we aren't losing anything.
I think I've rambled a bit much, but the gist is, you aren't the target of Windows Vista, and Microsoft isn't just making an operating system. And that you're bringing Unix-like preconceptions into the Microsoft world.
They aren't including licensing, they are including a notice that they own the copyright to the show, and that you have no rights regarding the show.
Also, keep in mind that the GPL is free as in speech, while over-the-air TV is free as in beer. The difference is important, and it illustrates why the GPL is nothing at all like broadcast TV.
I'm sure they'll be fine with that. The simple fact is, they don't care if you watch their shows. They care that they're getting paid. If iTunes isn't giving them enough money to support the shows (combined with the advertising revenue from their site and broadcast TV) then they aren't going to produce the show anymore. People who aren't generating enough revenue aren't worth it.
I've honestly never understood the big deal with television shows on iTunes, anyway. The only benefit you get over DVD is that you get it RIGHT AWAY. In exchange, you pay more, you get more restrictive DRM, and you get lower quality video. Oh, and up until very recently, you could only watch the show on your computer (now you can pay an additional $300 to watch it on your HDTV, if you have one.)
Your subject was on-topic, but your rant wasn't, and it didn't really belong here. The days of Windows insecurity are really coming to an end. Microsoft screwed up a few years ago, and they learned from it. Kudos to them.
But the monoculture is still an issue, because Windows still has something like 90% market penetration. Although Microsoft caused this (to a degree), I can't say that it's something to blame on them. Without requiring the user to read some documents (and take a quiz after), there's not much that Microsoft can do about the ignorance of its users, and no business should really be expected to curb their own growth in a way that would mean that a competitor could gain ground.
That's what IE7 on Vista does. But it's hard to sandbox "download and run this EXE for me, please" after the user has requested it, clicked ok, clicked "Yes I'm sure", and clicked "I trust this executable, now run it already!"
It's social engineering, and it will always work until/unless we remove control of computers from the users. That's not a solution I'm personally willing to endorse. How about you?
You hit the nail on the head. The reason that so many people don't learn is because there is no pain involved in cleaning up an infected computer. They don't pay anything--they get their nephew or children or grandchildren to do it for them, and everything's peachy. There were almost zero negative effects for the person who clicked on the attachment.
Lots of people have grown into thinking that computers just get infected, and that there's nothing you can do about it. It's very sad, really.
I don't think digitally signing their packages would help. You're still running an executable from some random people on the Internet. Of course, people do that every day....
You can automate the slipstream process fairly easily. The worst bit is getting the URLs to the new updates, but there are sites which provide that information if you look around for a bit.
As slick? No, definitely not. But with a WSUS server on a private subnet, it's going to do what you want.
You can also slipstream hotfixes in to XP, then burn that as an installable ISO. Check out nLite for more information on that.
Lastly, Microsoft USED to offer CDs with the latest patches so that you could install them without connecting to the network. Not sure if they still do that, though.
Many of the touted consumer benefits of SaaS has to do with not needing to keep backups and "everywhere availability." If you take these away, you are left with what amounts to a more negative experience to the customer with no particular benefit.
Of course, people will probably eat it up, anyway, because that's what they do.
Antivirus and Cedega are mediums between pure software as a service (web interfaces) and shrinkwrap software. Software as a service might be done right, and it might not be. In the case of Vista, lots of people were working in 'degraded' mode because the authentication software was broken. In Antivirus terms, they wouldn't be able to use their software for protection during the outage. The software was designed to be defective, in this case, and a bug triggered it for everyone. This is a problem. A large company hit with a bug like this might lose millions, or even billions, from the lack of productivity during this outage.
What if Office was like this? Would I be unable to access my documents, even if all of the software and documents were stored locally, because Office phoned home and Microsoft thought it was invalid? What if Vista was installed at the 911 call center? Or in the EMS van? Or at a hospital? This is a fundamentally flawed design, simply because computers have become critical parts of our lives. It's bad enough dealing with local bugs that might cause our computers to behave in unexpected ways--now we have to worry that the software will phone home and get a wrong number, or worse?
I'm not a big fan of Microsoft but this service (intially, until they have a lot of people signed up then they can tighten the screws) could save a small business a lot of money. And that, my friend, is the biggest problem that I have with software as a service. Your data is held hostage. You can never leave their service, even if they raise their prices tremendously.
If I buy a copy of Office today, I know that I can always get access to the files I create with it. Even if it's a hassle--having to reinstall every X days because their product activation server was dismantled years ago--I can always do it. Can the same be said of Google Apps? Of whatever Microsoft offering you're discussing? In 10 years, if I need access to my financial documents, will they still be around? Maybe, maybe not, but it's a pretty huge uncertainty right now. And that's the rub--that's the thing that, if left unaddressed, will prevent me from ever subscribing to software-as-a-service for anything important.
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless, Truth be told, if you go to a store, they have a right to look into your shopping bags to make sure you're not stealing their merchandise. is simply bullocks. Nothing gives them that right, unless they have a reasonable belief that you have stolen from them, and even then, you can demand that the police be present for such a search.
Why? Canada already does this (with taxes generated from blank media sales), only they haven't taken the extra step to shut the media cartels up about all the p2p that goes on up there.
You could even change it a bit. Only charge the tax on Internet access exceeding a certain speed. Moms and pops don't need 9Mbps down--let's face it, 99% of reasons for a home user to get that speed is to pirate.
I think that copyright is important, but too powerful right now. It's far too long to be useful, and even if it was shorter, laws like the DMCA effectively make it permanent (I can't copy my DVD, even after the copyright expires, because the tools to do so are still illegal.)
The way to deal with copyright is to watermark everything. That way, if it gets loose onto the Internet, the copyright owner knows who to contact. Let P2P thrive, let me view my content on any player I wish to use, and sue the biggest infringers. It's pretty much win/win. Only the content providers aren't happy enough with that--they want to win, and they want everyone else to lose.
Here's the thing.
As a human being, I should not be treated as a criminal by default. It's a small thing to show my receipt at Circuit City when there's no one else trying to leave at the same time, and it costs me mere seconds. It's quite another at a larger store like Fry's, where there is often a line to exit the store because of the loss-prevention clerk checking everyone's bags. Back before I realized how stupid it was, I stood in line for 5 minutes one time (from the first time that I looked at my watch--I'd been standing in line a bit longer before that) waiting for the employee to check everyone's bags.
This guy...probably wasn't in those circumstances. By his own words, it sounds like he was looking for a fight. But very minor changes in the situation could have made a huge difference. But if there had been a long line, and I tried to just walk out of the store, I'd probably suspect some sort of challenge (just like this guy suspected it when there was no apparent line.) That doesn't mean that I'm doing anything wrong.
They can bar you from returning, however, and this is the appropriate measure to take if they feel that you aren't someone with whom they wish to do business. If you come back, you are trespassing, and they should call the police.
They should not detain you, bar you from leaving, block your car in the parking lot, etc.
The 4th amendment may not apply, but that doesn't mean that the private entity has a right to search you, either. Only under the terms of a contract would that really apply. Otherwise, it could probably be considered assault.
The problem is the definition of "reasonable suspicion." These companies search every single person who leaves their store with a bag. If they have a reasonable suspicion that each of them shoplifted, then there's something wrong.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems unlikely that a reasonable person would consider their life to be in danger at this point.
Interesting question, though. In a case like this, I'm fairly certain that you could get a judgement against the restrainer in a civil case.
I think that you misunderstood. Returning the items is a way to show the store that you won't be treated like a criminal, and to deprive them of your business. They can't force you to return them, and they can't search you without consent (in most cases).
There's a lot of misinformation spreading around here.
Shopkeeper's Privilege is what allows businesses to search you, or to detain you until the police arrive. It only applies if they have a good reason to suspect that you are shoplifting. Generally speaking, though, the rules protect consumers as much as they protect the stores. The store must maintain visual contact with you at all times, from the time of the suspected shoplifting until you leave. Otherwise, they lose a lot of their power.
You don't lose your rights just because you set foot on private property. However, the store can kick you out and demand that you never return if you don't follow their policies. If you have already purchased your goods, this won't void the purchase.
You can block Flash with Opera using user stylesheets:
f irefox-extensions-ii
http://operawiki.info/FlashBlock
http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2005/09/opera-and-
The only plugin I saw that allowed that required that it be an FTP server. I'd just as soon be able to encrypt my login credentials, thankyouverymuch. Maybe it's changed since then.
Anyway, you're trusting Opera, already. You're trusting them with your web browsing, and with your login details (for sites where you log in) and with your CC information (when you buy something online through Opera.) I don't see what the issue is.
From Win95 to Win98 to Win2000 to WinXP, I've seen nothing but stability and security improvements. Vista has some security improvements, too, but in my experience, it isn't any more stable than XP. What's also come with every single new release of Windows is a changed UI, more eye-candy, and features that many geeks find useless.
That doesn't mean that they're useless to everyone.
Part of the issue is that you're focusing on the operating system. Windows is really quite a bit more than that--it's an operating environment (or a desktop environment, as GNOME/KDE are described.) This means that they aren't just there to provide a framework for performing tasks--the operating environment performs tasks on your behalf, provides feedback, allows the user access to information in a subtle, yet useful way (many OS X widgets, for example, and whatever Microsoft is calling their clone of it in Vista.)
In the Unix world, we separate the operating system (kernel) from the shell (bash/ksh/whatever) from the window maanger (metacity/fluxbox/xwm) from the desktop environment (GNOME/KDE). This separation allows for immense flexibility. I can mix-and-match flavors, and even eliminate some of these layers entirely, depending upon my needs.
Windows, however, caters to the mass market. It needs consistency in order to maintain its marketshare, while simultaneously requiring each version to have a distinct look in order to differentiate itself from the earlier versions. It has to be everything to everyone in order to keep existing users and attract new ones. It makes sense to throw in as much stuff as you can, so that people will want to use their product.
Most people buying a computer will use it for the Internet (browsing, email) and maybe for creating documents and managing finances. Yes, they could do this on a 10 year old machine. The only reason to upgrade, then, is for the new UI or because their old computer broke. In either case, they aren't really losing anything. They're gaining more cycles in their new computer, and they're getting an OS that uses those cycles. If their tasks don't change, their CPU power needs (over what the OS requires) probably haven't changed, either.
In more specialized circumstances, yes, it matters. And that's part of the reason that new OS are adopted fairly slowly in the business world. Not only do we want to ensure that the change is as easy as possible, but we want to make sure that we aren't losing anything.
I think I've rambled a bit much, but the gist is, you aren't the target of Windows Vista, and Microsoft isn't just making an operating system. And that you're bringing Unix-like preconceptions into the Microsoft world.
They aren't including licensing, they are including a notice that they own the copyright to the show, and that you have no rights regarding the show.
Also, keep in mind that the GPL is free as in speech, while over-the-air TV is free as in beer. The difference is important, and it illustrates why the GPL is nothing at all like broadcast TV.
I'm sure they'll be fine with that. The simple fact is, they don't care if you watch their shows. They care that they're getting paid. If iTunes isn't giving them enough money to support the shows (combined with the advertising revenue from their site and broadcast TV) then they aren't going to produce the show anymore. People who aren't generating enough revenue aren't worth it.
I've honestly never understood the big deal with television shows on iTunes, anyway. The only benefit you get over DVD is that you get it RIGHT AWAY. In exchange, you pay more, you get more restrictive DRM, and you get lower quality video. Oh, and up until very recently, you could only watch the show on your computer (now you can pay an additional $300 to watch it on your HDTV, if you have one.)
Your subject was on-topic, but your rant wasn't, and it didn't really belong here. The days of Windows insecurity are really coming to an end. Microsoft screwed up a few years ago, and they learned from it. Kudos to them.
But the monoculture is still an issue, because Windows still has something like 90% market penetration. Although Microsoft caused this (to a degree), I can't say that it's something to blame on them. Without requiring the user to read some documents (and take a quiz after), there's not much that Microsoft can do about the ignorance of its users, and no business should really be expected to curb their own growth in a way that would mean that a competitor could gain ground.
That's what IE7 on Vista does. But it's hard to sandbox "download and run this EXE for me, please" after the user has requested it, clicked ok, clicked "Yes I'm sure", and clicked "I trust this executable, now run it already!"
It's social engineering, and it will always work until/unless we remove control of computers from the users. That's not a solution I'm personally willing to endorse. How about you?
You hit the nail on the head. The reason that so many people don't learn is because there is no pain involved in cleaning up an infected computer. They don't pay anything--they get their nephew or children or grandchildren to do it for them, and everything's peachy. There were almost zero negative effects for the person who clicked on the attachment.
Lots of people have grown into thinking that computers just get infected, and that there's nothing you can do about it. It's very sad, really.
I don't think digitally signing their packages would help. You're still running an executable from some random people on the Internet. Of course, people do that every day....
You can automate the slipstream process fairly easily. The worst bit is getting the URLs to the new updates, but there are sites which provide that information if you look around for a bit.
As slick? No, definitely not. But with a WSUS server on a private subnet, it's going to do what you want.
You can also slipstream hotfixes in to XP, then burn that as an installable ISO. Check out nLite for more information on that.
Lastly, Microsoft USED to offer CDs with the latest patches so that you could install them without connecting to the network. Not sure if they still do that, though.
Many of the touted consumer benefits of SaaS has to do with not needing to keep backups and "everywhere availability." If you take these away, you are left with what amounts to a more negative experience to the customer with no particular benefit.
Of course, people will probably eat it up, anyway, because that's what they do.
Antivirus and Cedega are mediums between pure software as a service (web interfaces) and shrinkwrap software. Software as a service might be done right, and it might not be. In the case of Vista, lots of people were working in 'degraded' mode because the authentication software was broken. In Antivirus terms, they wouldn't be able to use their software for protection during the outage. The software was designed to be defective, in this case, and a bug triggered it for everyone. This is a problem. A large company hit with a bug like this might lose millions, or even billions, from the lack of productivity during this outage.
What if Office was like this? Would I be unable to access my documents, even if all of the software and documents were stored locally, because Office phoned home and Microsoft thought it was invalid? What if Vista was installed at the 911 call center? Or in the EMS van? Or at a hospital? This is a fundamentally flawed design, simply because computers have become critical parts of our lives. It's bad enough dealing with local bugs that might cause our computers to behave in unexpected ways--now we have to worry that the software will phone home and get a wrong number, or worse?
If I buy a copy of Office today, I know that I can always get access to the files I create with it. Even if it's a hassle--having to reinstall every X days because their product activation server was dismantled years ago--I can always do it. Can the same be said of Google Apps? Of whatever Microsoft offering you're discussing? In 10 years, if I need access to my financial documents, will they still be around? Maybe, maybe not, but it's a pretty huge uncertainty right now. And that's the rub--that's the thing that, if left unaddressed, will prevent me from ever subscribing to software-as-a-service for anything important.