When it comes to security of just about anything, there are many misconceptions. The biggest problem is that MOST security problems come from the "bundled" software that comes with the base OS. This includes Linux, Windows(all versions), MacOS, and really just about anything else. Now, we have a fundamental problem that all modern OS releases will force certain things during the initial install, with fairly few giving an "advanced" option to select what features you want.
For Linux, a web server is fairly common, yet most people probably don't need or use it on their own machine, and a "normal end user" wouldn't even think or know about it being there. That is a huge potential security risk, as is just about any other thing that comes included in an OS that is not really understood by the user. The primary reason we see so many security problems is because there is a mindset out there with any group or company that releases an OS that you MUST include all sorts of features, and to ask questions will scare off those without much if any computer or technical skills. What happened to the "advanced" install for something like MS Windows, where you can go through DURING INSTALL to pick and choose which features you want? Why not give the option to disable networking during an install for a standalone workstation? It may not be a common thing, but giving people the option also means that by default, most operating systems would be MORE secure if they asked some questions during the install.
Many people forget that there ARE field techs who have to go out to respond to complaints, and fix problems. These employees do NOT work for free, and since they are skilled workers(with exceptions for the incompetent ones), they also are not cheap minimum wage type employees. So, how many techs does it take to maintain the lines in your town? If more fiber needs to be added due to capacity issues, new fiber has to be added, and there is a cost for that as well. All told, there is a lot of support that you end up paying for as a part of your bill. Increased bandwidth use means that fiber will need to be added more often, so that needs to be accounted for.
When that bandwidth has to be planned for a neighborhood, and you demand as much as 10 average users, then what do you expect? You should check what the rates are for business users, and switch to a business account if it makes more sense to you.
This is where going to a business account instead of residential account then makes more sense. What most people complaining don't realize is that for those using their service for BUSINESS purposes, they may get some things that residential users don't. The key is that for a business account, where you set a certain amount of bandwidth, network management is treated differently, possibly with a higher priority given since it is a BUSINESS.
You also have to look at the network topology. When you have a data center, you get a fixed amount of bandwidth into that data center, and it is up to the management of the data center for who gets what bandwidth. In the residential market, you have all that equipment on the pole(or the lines down the street), and you have to get the bandwidth to and from your house with all the maintenance involved. It is far cheaper for Comcast to host your computer at their location than provide the bandwidth to your house. Maintenance is a huge part of this.
In some fields, it takes far longer for a product to make it to market, and for others, there should be a longer limit based on how copyright/patents apply. For example, copyright should last far longer than patent protections, because when you copy what others make almost exactly and for profit, the author of the original work SHOULD be entitled to a fair(to be discussed) percentage of the profits.
We really have two situations that make this whole area complicated. The first is copyright, where the cost to make the original, in terms of effort to write, then implement the original work will be far higher than the cost of duplication. For movies and books, getting the story right, flow of the story, character development, and then getting that story produced, either into printed form in books, or then casting and actually making of a movie is expensive in terms of time and manpower, not to mention money for research and other costs. Music will tend to be cheaper than movies, but the idea is the same, if you make something ORIGINAL, then it takes more effort to get it right than those who copy it. This is why the AUTHORS of original works should ALWAYS be entitled to some share of the profits of any derived works. I am not saying the so-called copyright holders/publishers here should automatically get a cut, I am saying the people who really earned it.
Then you have patents. Now, it can take a long time in some industries for an invention to make it from concept to finished product that is ready to sell. For the auto industry, it isn't uncommon for something to take five years just to make it out of initial testing phases into the original test vehicles due to testing issues(liability makes extra testing REQUIRED). Software patents in general are a rather silly idea, simply because so little is an original concept, and it is only a matter of time for people to just come up with the same idea themselves. A duplication of an existing idea but extended to another platform should be automatically be denied patent protection so we don't see "A jet engine that is used in a car would be different from one used in a plane" type of stupid patents. Or other things, like something you do with a mouse now being applied to a touch screen should be disallowed due to being obvious extensions of the same idea.
So, how long should a new "invention" be protected? It all depends on how long the invention would normally take to bring a product to market, and then multiply that by 3. If a book can take five years to bring to market(not everyone can write a full novel in only six months, for many, it takes years for their first book to be ready). For the auto industry, figure 7 years from invention to the product hitting a car that is for sale, so 21 years should apply there. For software PATENTS, if something is really original and new conceptually, give it 3 years from the time the product gets sold, or at most, 7 years.
Things like file systems, computer interfaces, and connection types should get only two years protection before they become open for use by others. None of this nonsense where FAT32 can't be used by others without a license for ages. Copyright is NOT the same as patents, and if a new ORIGINAL piece of code works with these things, that should be allowed quickly, but to copy the exact code should follow copyright.
Duplication vs. invention is the other side that so many people don't seem to grasp as the big problem here. It costs very very little to DUPLICATE the inventions of others. Copy a file or CD/DVD/Blu-Ray, and the cost is minimal. Now, what about taking a script for a movie, then hire new actors, get new music produced for the new movie, production costs, making the movie itself on whatever format....or even perform a song done by another artist or group. On some levels, the original writer/artist should get SOME compensation, but since you are doing your own production, the costs should be much less. For those who feel that music sh
I am not being anti-Microsoft here, but more to the point, if Microsoft is investigated for this issue, then Microsoft will easily also point the finger at Apple already doing this. Once that happens, both Microsoft AND Apple will get yelled at for it, but since Windows 8 is not released yet, Microsoft can get away with only a warning, while Apple may get a huge fine.
...is that local, state, and federal governments are so bad about how money is spent, they are focused on taxes and running deficits as a result. Government employees are generally paid at least as well, if not better than the same job would pay in the private sector, yet the compensation package also includes far more days off per year, PLUS a pension and better than normal insurance benefits. As a result of all of this, tax revenues just can't bring in enough money to pay for all of this. So, what do the idiots in politics do, they start taxing more and more things, and you end up in the situation we are in here.
My way of looking at it is that if government employees SACRIFICE, get paid less, get worse benefits, that is the only time they deserve a pension. If they get paid like those in the private sector, they should be forced to save up or live on Social Security the way those in the private sector currently do. If they get paid MORE than those in the private sector do, they should get less in terms of benefits while on the job. Make compensation be fair and balanced, but politicians are fairly clueless in this regard. I don't see those working for the government doing a true service to the people they supposedly serve, so why should they get extra benefits?
The PC(by whatever name you prefer), really only became available to consumers in the form of the old Apple 1 back in 1976, and a bit later, the TRS-80 model 1. Yes, there were other machines around, but for the general consumer, these were some of the first machines that were even available to them. The invention of the TV is quite a bit older, and as a static device that does only ONE thing, it makes sense that SOFTWARE is the key thing that differentiates between problems in the computer realm and that of other types of products.
Except for the latest cars, you don't see software updates available as well, so, static devices in terms of functionality/performance vs products where the abilities of the product can actually be updated without a major effort. The fact that we now live in a world where new products can see a MAJOR update every few years is a major change from the days where the same product will be sold over and over for years, with only minor updates. This is the key, how fast do products evolve, and is something you clearly have missed. When you see cars and TVs get major changes to functionality every three years, then you might have a valid point.
There are a lot of people out there looking to do something malicious to others, so here's the perfect way to open the door to secretly messing with Mercedes owners. Just get a small transmitter used to emulate the official server, get it close to a Mercedes, and now push an update that KILLS the car. No fix until it gets back to a dealership where the chip can be replaced with one that isn't borked.
A normal coast to coast connection in the USA(East to West or West to East) will be upwards of 85ms, and 150ms or so is fairly normal connecting to a server on another ISP(multiple ISPs in the middle). Anything above 300ms or so to just about anywhere in the USA indicates some sort of problem between you and that other system.
So, it still shows that Apple did not invent these things. Apple does not seem to be able to really come up with new ideas, they just look at what others do, and then figures out a better package for it. The result is that Apple should not be in the position to patent much of anything, since their products are all based on what others have invented.
I am all for inventors being able to protect what THEY have invented, so what has Apple really come up with that is original, iTunes?
The vast majority of things that Apple developed have taken elements of things that were present in products made by other companies. Yes, Apple may have done things better, or made them more attractive, but the vast majority of what you see out there from Apple WERE done before. This is why Apple comes across as a patent troll, because they have not really come up with many ideas themselves.
Yes, there IS a cost, you just don't understand how much of an expense there is.
Fiber has a limit on how much bandwidth can be handled per strand, and in general, due to increased costs, carriers will NOT run a fiber bundle the size of one of Arnold Schwartzenagers biceps to each and every cell phone tower. The routers used to handle the traffic also have a limited capacity in how much data they can handle. So, what happens when the amount of data being used exceeds the capacity of the equipment? Slowdowns show up, and you have the complaints about AT&T that you must have heard about. So, carriers need to continually upgrade the equipment as the data usage goes up, and that means continued costs for that new equipment.
For cable and DSL providers, the data usage is fairly steady overall when everyone in an area has service, with spikes in usage that can cause some issues. So, they DO have to upgrade the equipment from time to time, but it is easier to predict the amount of data ahead of time for each network node. When people can roam around, the same person streaming video content will cause the data usage to move from tower to tower, so you could go from 5,000 people using data on a given tower to 7500 people using that same tower, but it isn't predictable. Go to a small town in Nebraska, and you may NEVER see data usage go up very high...until a basketball championship comes to town and drives demand through the roof. It's unpredictable in the mobile space, and yet, people expect the carriers to be able to predict and plan for every event, even while they don't offer service EVERYWHERE yet.
So yes, there is a cost to the providers to increase capacity, add/upgrade routers, and then you have all the maintenance as equipment goes bad. I'm sure you have had a car or computer die on you...did you buy a replacement after the first year, just in case the one you plan to use for five years dies on you? Companies DO tend to buy replacement parts in limited quantities, but if something major happens, they may not have replacements for EVERYTHING. Packets really do have a cost, but with fiber, it is fairly low on a per-packet basis. $50/month for 15 megabit download speeds with unlimited usage isn't really so terrible, but for cellular, the costs are higher.
If you were planning to stream video content, why would ANYONE go with the 300MB plan, instead of the 3GB plan? If you plan to use data, then you go with the plan that gives you the appropriate amount of data for what you want. AT&T DOES offer pay as you go data for those who do not have a smartphone, and it costs more per megabyte than if you go with a data plan.
Smartphones tend to have "phone home" features to check for updates and such, and if you don't have a data plan, customers who buy a smartphone without planning to use any data services would freak out about "what is this data usage fee on my bill". That is why all carriers REQUIRE a data plan for those who buy a smartphone. People have to accept that if they plan to use data, they should NOT go with a low-end data plan, and they should go to the 2GB or above plan.
2.81GB of data...fits in the new 3GB plan offered by AT&T. So, what's the problem?
The real problem with ME wasn't about DOS, or a lack of DOS, or anything like that, it was the whole "plug and play" layer being so broken that you could make the system unstable by adding a new card to the system, and even removing it wouldn't get you back. The way ME tried to interface with motherboard resources failed miserably.
It is a complex issue, no question, but you also have to look at the different perspectives involved, and then go into each one, because there are a TON of differences between different areas where copyright comes into play.
For music, the system is so broken that it isn't funny, mostly because the "artist" generally sees far less than the record labels. Yes, there is the cost of the recording studio, staffing, and all that, but once that expense has been covered, the cost of duplication has gotten so low, it is almost criminal that the record labels get such a large percentage of the revenues. This is where people feel more "justified" in downloading music "illegally", because the artist probably would never see any revenues from a legal purchase anyway.
For books, it becomes a bit more difficult, because to write in the first place, with the goal being to make a living from it, is a VERY risky thing. If an author writes one book that is popular, how much of the revenues go to the author, but then again, if a book is popular for the life of the author, and people buy it, shouldn't the author make money on each copy? The idea that one person buys a book(which takes months, if not years to write) and then would COPY it, while keeping the original, when the proceeds MUST be enough to cover writing the next book is where authors do deserve some protection. If the demand to read the book is so great that a COPY is made for a friend or relative(rather than transferring the existing book to the other person), then the author does deserve some compensation for writing it in the first place, since the book will still be in print.
For movies, the cost of making a movie is huge, and the number of people involved is large enough where the movie studios NEED extra income just to make sure they can stay in business if one or more movies in a year do not sell very well. If you figure $200 million as the cost to make many movies is there, then what if a movie is a flop, but YOU like it. The more money the studio brings in from that movie, the less of a loss there will be, and it will encourage more movies overall, even if there will be some bad ones in the mix.
Then you have software. If you work for a company and you get a paycheck for your work, then you have a certain amount of security, and probably benefits(health and such). Software publishers COULD make money on software written 15 years earlier if it is kept up to date. The key here is that a BUSINESS that exists to produce software needs to bring in enough money for MULTIPLE software releases. 3-5 years per program, so, how much money does the developer need to bring in from the sale of each program to make the business profitable? Yes, there are examples of some wildly successful software companies out there, but most live, produce a few titles, then die off, and THAT is where the problems come from.
The basic idea is that if someone can duplicate the effort of others and produce something similar, then that should be allowed(so music artists who cover songs from other artists), but if you can't write programs yourself, then you should not be allowed to just copy the work of others and claim you don't agree with copyright. Those who don't have the talent to independently reproduce the work of others is the problem here.
There really are two aspects here, the cost and effort to reproduce the work in question, and then the cost to be the author of the work in question. In the days when you needed a printing press to reproduce a printed work, then the effort required was LARGE, and on top of that, if the author was compensated for the composition, then there should be no problem with multiple publishing houses releasing the same book.
Software developers should in theory have the same option, where multiple publishers could be used, and the one that best sells the product makes the most money. The developers then are still the ones who profit on the software itself, and those who package and s
There is a huge difference between an illegal download, and file sharing, and that is the essence of the problem. To download means you only deprive the software publishers one sale, but when you SHARE(which most peer to peer networks use), then you are aiding one or more people to also make the unauthorized duplicate, and that is where the problem comes from.
So, you personally download a song, or a program...it wouldn't be seen as a big deal. The moment you share that download with 1 or more other people, you are now partially responsible for the lost revenues of each copy. Even if you accept the $0.99 cost as what is missing, if you help 10,000 people to download it "illegally", that adds up to how much money has been lost from the legit distributors.
You also may not be aware how much money it takes to actually write some of these programs. A team of 10 people(and that is LOW, many apps have a lot more than that), each being paid $50,000/year comes to $500,000/year. Now, picture that it takes 3-5 years to make most commercial applications, and you see the millions that had to go in to make the application. Just to break even, the studio needs to make at least that much money. If a program does not sell well, then that is a LOSS, and that is when illegal duplication really seems wrong. How many great developers have gone out of business over the years, who would still be around if all people who used the software actually paid for it?
WebOS had a lot of potential, and if HP had made the Pre 3 the priority and released it in March of 2011, it would probably have done quite well(with marketing support). WebOS still has a lot of potential as an OS, but HP has grossly mismanaged it and placed the priorities in the wrong places.
Basic concept, the Veer was NEVER going to be a wildly successful device, it was a niche device with its small size. The Pre 3 would have been your mainsteam/flagship, and tablet sales are very much linked to how popular the PHONES are. So, what did HP do, they pushed out the Veer, followed by the Touchpad, with no mention of the phone which would have sold more units than the other devices. Then, before they even try selling the Pre 3(which was already manufactured and boxed), they cancel the whole thing.
I maintain that if the Pre 3 was released at the time the Veer was, there would have been a lot more interest in the Touchpad when IT finally was released, and things could very well be different right now.
When "good enough" becomes a target, you get a major reduction in innovation and improvement. This is what happened with the auto industry, and it took a financial crisis to change things. The big question is why you don't want to see improvements to the technology, rather than asking how TV can be improved.
So, higher refresh rates...for a 1920x1080 display, you really do not NEED 240Hz, but if you think about it, if 240Hz were the norm, then that would enable higher resolution displays, which SHOULD be the goal of manufacturers. When computer displays for the most part are limited to 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 due to trying to share technology with the TV industry, that is where we should ALL be asking for better and better TV technology.
Many people I know never saw a "need" for stereo TV back when that first started showing up, and many people today don't see a need for surround sound, even when it DOES enhance the experience. Going 3D, in terms of having objects that pop out of the screen at viewers is useless, but well implemented 3D is more about depth of field, and giving that sense that what you are seeing has depth. Or even the move from regular resolution to HD, many initially didn't pay attention to how much better things look on a HD display compared to the older SD displays, but now, they would never want to go back.
Content is content, and that is not where you see change. Going from mono to stereo to surround sound may not have been NECESSARY, but it did improve the experience, and isn't THAT what it should all be about? Progress...why is that so horrible? For computers, we are generally happy that computers have gotten more powerful and allow for doing more things at home today than professional level computers could hope to do back in the early to mid 1990s, yet the only people who complain are those who don't like the idea of progress, or that it makes it so buying something new is a positive experience, rather than just throwing money away to get something that is in better condition, but is no better than what they had previously.
I have a general rule about purchases, and that is that expensive purchases SHOULD give you the sense that not only are you getting a refresh of what you had before, but the new item should be BETTER than the old. From cell phones to computers, or even to cars, wouldn't you feel you wasted your money if you are buying something, and there has been NO improvement? For televisions, if you spend $1200 today, and you spent $1200 four or five years ago, wouldn't you expect the new one to be better for the same price? Larger, or better quality, or more features, or better refresh rate, you want more for your money, because you expect there to have been progress.
In general, what is broken about TV is how the networks are generally aiming for the lowest common denominator, and are afraid to upset the "delicate sensibilities" of the people in the midwest of the USA. We should see a lot more programming that is aimed at adults, even without needing "adult content" to get there. People use profanity in the real world, it is all around us, yet TV programming does not properly reflect this. You want to know why people are drawn to the premium channels, it is because the original programming THERE has not been toned down.
Why don't you complain about Verizon too then? Verizon is far worse as a company, yet there is all this ill will toward AT&T. Is it cheaper on Verizon than AT&T? Verizon is the dominant player right now, so why not bash THEM for having the same price structure as AT&T?
In any merger, there will be a loss of middle management and operational jobs, that's a given. The problem is how people try to spin it. The FCC has not done a very good job trying to make the playing field level by forcing all towers to be open for any carrier that wants to use it(if they can run their own fiber of course).
Basic fact here, T-mobile is going to go away in the next few years, if AT&T gets them or not. This means there will be an automatic reduction in competition, no matter what. Using "loss of competition" actually makes ZERO sense with that in mind. The parent company of T-mobile has decided they want to drop T-mobile, and it is just a matter of time. If T-mobile goes away, will that make jobs or not? A merger would SAVE most of the operational jobs at this point, even if it does not "create them". Maintenance of cell phone towers is an area that would NOT see a loss of jobs.
Increased competition....AT&T really has a hard time competing with Verizon for overall coverage area, and could use more towers to fill in holes in coverage. AT&T really is NOT competitive with Verizon where I live for quality of service, but I hate Verizon. The merger with T-mobile would help. Sprint on the other hand, does not want to be seen as the "last place" carrier, so they want T-mobile to stick around....the problem is, T-mobile will NOT be around for all that much longer. Sprint has a coverage map that is even worse than AT&T, so they see a stronger AT&T as bad for them, meaning Sprint will be less competitive.
So, access to a larger national network....does that justify having higher prices when the cost to run the network is so much higher? T-mobile has the low prices just to get people in the door, even if they BARELY pull a profit on those accounts for the cost to provide the service. Growing the coverage area...since 2002, has T-mobile even grown their coverage map? If they don't have the income to expand, that would explain it and would make a merger with AT&T GOOD for customers.
So, there are downsides to the merger, like $150,000+ employees being out of work(their jobs would not be needed), but the upsides to having a better coverage map would be better. People just need to remember that there is something called the costs of operations, and a larger map will mean those costs will be higher.
You forget that compared to other countries, the USA and Canada have huge open areas of low population density compared to just about any other country out there. The USA has the highest population densities around the outside of the continental USA, with lower population densities in the center. By providing service in the low population areas, carriers LOSE money by providing access there, and only do it to allow customers in profitable areas to travel and still have service. The high costs you see from Verizon and AT&T are due to having a larger coverage area with service in more places that actually reduce profits, not increase them.
As far as the cost of computers over the past 30 years, they have gone down due to components going down in price. Improvements in the fabs have reduced costs to the chip makers, and volume alone has brought the price down. Volume....if you sell 10,000 units per month at $500 each might be necessary to make a profit. If your sales can go up to 1,000,000 units per month, you can drop the price down to $100 each, and you still make more profit due to the high volumes. Back in the mid 1980s, there were more companies selling computers and computer parts, but the Internet has made it so it is far easier to find the places that sell computers and computer parts. There is a TON of competition out there, but poorly run companies DO sink, and it makes sense that we have seen so many come and go over the years. The idea of volume discounts will ALWAYS favor the big players over the small.
There is a difference between people being naturally suicidal, and people who feel it would be better to kill themselves, rather than go to a job that is so bad, they really would prefer to be dead. I've had the idle thought that due to things like leaks and corporate security, those Foxconn employees were killed for trying to sell secrets to others and were caught by security.
The problem is that at the time those businesses got started, they were not in danger of lawsuits shutting them down the way things are today. Could you even come up with a new computer program without tripping over some software patent that is so obscure, no one would know about it?
Slashdot Mirror
When it comes to security of just about anything, there are many misconceptions. The biggest problem is that MOST security problems come from the "bundled" software that comes with the base OS. This includes Linux, Windows(all versions), MacOS, and really just about anything else. Now, we have a fundamental problem that all modern OS releases will force certain things during the initial install, with fairly few giving an "advanced" option to select what features you want.
For Linux, a web server is fairly common, yet most people probably don't need or use it on their own machine, and a "normal end user" wouldn't even think or know about it being there. That is a huge potential security risk, as is just about any other thing that comes included in an OS that is not really understood by the user. The primary reason we see so many security problems is because there is a mindset out there with any group or company that releases an OS that you MUST include all sorts of features, and to ask questions will scare off those without much if any computer or technical skills. What happened to the "advanced" install for something like MS Windows, where you can go through DURING INSTALL to pick and choose which features you want? Why not give the option to disable networking during an install for a standalone workstation? It may not be a common thing, but giving people the option also means that by default, most operating systems would be MORE secure if they asked some questions during the install.
Many people forget that there ARE field techs who have to go out to respond to complaints, and fix problems. These employees do NOT work for free, and since they are skilled workers(with exceptions for the incompetent ones), they also are not cheap minimum wage type employees. So, how many techs does it take to maintain the lines in your town? If more fiber needs to be added due to capacity issues, new fiber has to be added, and there is a cost for that as well. All told, there is a lot of support that you end up paying for as a part of your bill. Increased bandwidth use means that fiber will need to be added more often, so that needs to be accounted for.
When that bandwidth has to be planned for a neighborhood, and you demand as much as 10 average users, then what do you expect? You should check what the rates are for business users, and switch to a business account if it makes more sense to you.
This is where going to a business account instead of residential account then makes more sense. What most people complaining don't realize is that for those using their service for BUSINESS purposes, they may get some things that residential users don't. The key is that for a business account, where you set a certain amount of bandwidth, network management is treated differently, possibly with a higher priority given since it is a BUSINESS.
You also have to look at the network topology. When you have a data center, you get a fixed amount of bandwidth into that data center, and it is up to the management of the data center for who gets what bandwidth. In the residential market, you have all that equipment on the pole(or the lines down the street), and you have to get the bandwidth to and from your house with all the maintenance involved. It is far cheaper for Comcast to host your computer at their location than provide the bandwidth to your house. Maintenance is a huge part of this.
In some fields, it takes far longer for a product to make it to market, and for others, there should be a longer limit based on how copyright/patents apply. For example, copyright should last far longer than patent protections, because when you copy what others make almost exactly and for profit, the author of the original work SHOULD be entitled to a fair(to be discussed) percentage of the profits.
We really have two situations that make this whole area complicated. The first is copyright, where the cost to make the original, in terms of effort to write, then implement the original work will be far higher than the cost of duplication. For movies and books, getting the story right, flow of the story, character development, and then getting that story produced, either into printed form in books, or then casting and actually making of a movie is expensive in terms of time and manpower, not to mention money for research and other costs. Music will tend to be cheaper than movies, but the idea is the same, if you make something ORIGINAL, then it takes more effort to get it right than those who copy it. This is why the AUTHORS of original works should ALWAYS be entitled to some share of the profits of any derived works. I am not saying the so-called copyright holders/publishers here should automatically get a cut, I am saying the people who really earned it.
Then you have patents. Now, it can take a long time in some industries for an invention to make it from concept to finished product that is ready to sell. For the auto industry, it isn't uncommon for something to take five years just to make it out of initial testing phases into the original test vehicles due to testing issues(liability makes extra testing REQUIRED). Software patents in general are a rather silly idea, simply because so little is an original concept, and it is only a matter of time for people to just come up with the same idea themselves. A duplication of an existing idea but extended to another platform should be automatically be denied patent protection so we don't see "A jet engine that is used in a car would be different from one used in a plane" type of stupid patents. Or other things, like something you do with a mouse now being applied to a touch screen should be disallowed due to being obvious extensions of the same idea.
So, how long should a new "invention" be protected? It all depends on how long the invention would normally take to bring a product to market, and then multiply that by 3. If a book can take five years to bring to market(not everyone can write a full novel in only six months, for many, it takes years for their first book to be ready). For the auto industry, figure 7 years from invention to the product hitting a car that is for sale, so 21 years should apply there. For software PATENTS, if something is really original and new conceptually, give it 3 years from the time the product gets sold, or at most, 7 years.
Things like file systems, computer interfaces, and connection types should get only two years protection before they become open for use by others. None of this nonsense where FAT32 can't be used by others without a license for ages. Copyright is NOT the same as patents, and if a new ORIGINAL piece of code works with these things, that should be allowed quickly, but to copy the exact code should follow copyright.
Duplication vs. invention is the other side that so many people don't seem to grasp as the big problem here. It costs very very little to DUPLICATE the inventions of others. Copy a file or CD/DVD/Blu-Ray, and the cost is minimal. Now, what about taking a script for a movie, then hire new actors, get new music produced for the new movie, production costs, making the movie itself on whatever format....or even perform a song done by another artist or group. On some levels, the original writer/artist should get SOME compensation, but since you are doing your own production, the costs should be much less. For those who feel that music sh
I am not being anti-Microsoft here, but more to the point, if Microsoft is investigated for this issue, then Microsoft will easily also point the finger at Apple already doing this. Once that happens, both Microsoft AND Apple will get yelled at for it, but since Windows 8 is not released yet, Microsoft can get away with only a warning, while Apple may get a huge fine.
Demand exceeds capacity, not use exceeds capacity.
...is that local, state, and federal governments are so bad about how money is spent, they are focused on taxes and running deficits as a result. Government employees are generally paid at least as well, if not better than the same job would pay in the private sector, yet the compensation package also includes far more days off per year, PLUS a pension and better than normal insurance benefits. As a result of all of this, tax revenues just can't bring in enough money to pay for all of this. So, what do the idiots in politics do, they start taxing more and more things, and you end up in the situation we are in here.
My way of looking at it is that if government employees SACRIFICE, get paid less, get worse benefits, that is the only time they deserve a pension. If they get paid like those in the private sector, they should be forced to save up or live on Social Security the way those in the private sector currently do. If they get paid MORE than those in the private sector do, they should get less in terms of benefits while on the job. Make compensation be fair and balanced, but politicians are fairly clueless in this regard. I don't see those working for the government doing a true service to the people they supposedly serve, so why should they get extra benefits?
The PC(by whatever name you prefer), really only became available to consumers in the form of the old Apple 1 back in 1976, and a bit later, the TRS-80 model 1. Yes, there were other machines around, but for the general consumer, these were some of the first machines that were even available to them. The invention of the TV is quite a bit older, and as a static device that does only ONE thing, it makes sense that SOFTWARE is the key thing that differentiates between problems in the computer realm and that of other types of products.
Except for the latest cars, you don't see software updates available as well, so, static devices in terms of functionality/performance vs products where the abilities of the product can actually be updated without a major effort. The fact that we now live in a world where new products can see a MAJOR update every few years is a major change from the days where the same product will be sold over and over for years, with only minor updates. This is the key, how fast do products evolve, and is something you clearly have missed. When you see cars and TVs get major changes to functionality every three years, then you might have a valid point.
There are a lot of people out there looking to do something malicious to others, so here's the perfect way to open the door to secretly messing with Mercedes owners. Just get a small transmitter used to emulate the official server, get it close to a Mercedes, and now push an update that KILLS the car. No fix until it gets back to a dealership where the chip can be replaced with one that isn't borked.
A normal coast to coast connection in the USA(East to West or West to East) will be upwards of 85ms, and 150ms or so is fairly normal connecting to a server on another ISP(multiple ISPs in the middle). Anything above 300ms or so to just about anywhere in the USA indicates some sort of problem between you and that other system.
So, it still shows that Apple did not invent these things. Apple does not seem to be able to really come up with new ideas, they just look at what others do, and then figures out a better package for it. The result is that Apple should not be in the position to patent much of anything, since their products are all based on what others have invented.
I am all for inventors being able to protect what THEY have invented, so what has Apple really come up with that is original, iTunes?
The vast majority of things that Apple developed have taken elements of things that were present in products made by other companies. Yes, Apple may have done things better, or made them more attractive, but the vast majority of what you see out there from Apple WERE done before. This is why Apple comes across as a patent troll, because they have not really come up with many ideas themselves.
Yes, there IS a cost, you just don't understand how much of an expense there is.
Fiber has a limit on how much bandwidth can be handled per strand, and in general, due to increased costs, carriers will NOT run a fiber bundle the size of one of Arnold Schwartzenagers biceps to each and every cell phone tower. The routers used to handle the traffic also have a limited capacity in how much data they can handle. So, what happens when the amount of data being used exceeds the capacity of the equipment? Slowdowns show up, and you have the complaints about AT&T that you must have heard about. So, carriers need to continually upgrade the equipment as the data usage goes up, and that means continued costs for that new equipment.
For cable and DSL providers, the data usage is fairly steady overall when everyone in an area has service, with spikes in usage that can cause some issues. So, they DO have to upgrade the equipment from time to time, but it is easier to predict the amount of data ahead of time for each network node. When people can roam around, the same person streaming video content will cause the data usage to move from tower to tower, so you could go from 5,000 people using data on a given tower to 7500 people using that same tower, but it isn't predictable. Go to a small town in Nebraska, and you may NEVER see data usage go up very high...until a basketball championship comes to town and drives demand through the roof. It's unpredictable in the mobile space, and yet, people expect the carriers to be able to predict and plan for every event, even while they don't offer service EVERYWHERE yet.
So yes, there is a cost to the providers to increase capacity, add/upgrade routers, and then you have all the maintenance as equipment goes bad. I'm sure you have had a car or computer die on you...did you buy a replacement after the first year, just in case the one you plan to use for five years dies on you? Companies DO tend to buy replacement parts in limited quantities, but if something major happens, they may not have replacements for EVERYTHING. Packets really do have a cost, but with fiber, it is fairly low on a per-packet basis. $50/month for 15 megabit download speeds with unlimited usage isn't really so terrible, but for cellular, the costs are higher.
If you were planning to stream video content, why would ANYONE go with the 300MB plan, instead of the 3GB plan? If you plan to use data, then you go with the plan that gives you the appropriate amount of data for what you want. AT&T DOES offer pay as you go data for those who do not have a smartphone, and it costs more per megabyte than if you go with a data plan.
Smartphones tend to have "phone home" features to check for updates and such, and if you don't have a data plan, customers who buy a smartphone without planning to use any data services would freak out about "what is this data usage fee on my bill". That is why all carriers REQUIRE a data plan for those who buy a smartphone. People have to accept that if they plan to use data, they should NOT go with a low-end data plan, and they should go to the 2GB or above plan.
2.81GB of data...fits in the new 3GB plan offered by AT&T. So, what's the problem?
The real problem with ME wasn't about DOS, or a lack of DOS, or anything like that, it was the whole "plug and play" layer being so broken that you could make the system unstable by adding a new card to the system, and even removing it wouldn't get you back. The way ME tried to interface with motherboard resources failed miserably.
It is a complex issue, no question, but you also have to look at the different perspectives involved, and then go into each one, because there are a TON of differences between different areas where copyright comes into play.
For music, the system is so broken that it isn't funny, mostly because the "artist" generally sees far less than the record labels. Yes, there is the cost of the recording studio, staffing, and all that, but once that expense has been covered, the cost of duplication has gotten so low, it is almost criminal that the record labels get such a large percentage of the revenues. This is where people feel more "justified" in downloading music "illegally", because the artist probably would never see any revenues from a legal purchase anyway.
For books, it becomes a bit more difficult, because to write in the first place, with the goal being to make a living from it, is a VERY risky thing. If an author writes one book that is popular, how much of the revenues go to the author, but then again, if a book is popular for the life of the author, and people buy it, shouldn't the author make money on each copy? The idea that one person buys a book(which takes months, if not years to write) and then would COPY it, while keeping the original, when the proceeds MUST be enough to cover writing the next book is where authors do deserve some protection. If the demand to read the book is so great that a COPY is made for a friend or relative(rather than transferring the existing book to the other person), then the author does deserve some compensation for writing it in the first place, since the book will still be in print.
For movies, the cost of making a movie is huge, and the number of people involved is large enough where the movie studios NEED extra income just to make sure they can stay in business if one or more movies in a year do not sell very well. If you figure $200 million as the cost to make many movies is there, then what if a movie is a flop, but YOU like it. The more money the studio brings in from that movie, the less of a loss there will be, and it will encourage more movies overall, even if there will be some bad ones in the mix.
Then you have software. If you work for a company and you get a paycheck for your work, then you have a certain amount of security, and probably benefits(health and such). Software publishers COULD make money on software written 15 years earlier if it is kept up to date. The key here is that a BUSINESS that exists to produce software needs to bring in enough money for MULTIPLE software releases. 3-5 years per program, so, how much money does the developer need to bring in from the sale of each program to make the business profitable? Yes, there are examples of some wildly successful software companies out there, but most live, produce a few titles, then die off, and THAT is where the problems come from.
The basic idea is that if someone can duplicate the effort of others and produce something similar, then that should be allowed(so music artists who cover songs from other artists), but if you can't write programs yourself, then you should not be allowed to just copy the work of others and claim you don't agree with copyright. Those who don't have the talent to independently reproduce the work of others is the problem here.
There really are two aspects here, the cost and effort to reproduce the work in question, and then the cost to be the author of the work in question. In the days when you needed a printing press to reproduce a printed work, then the effort required was LARGE, and on top of that, if the author was compensated for the composition, then there should be no problem with multiple publishing houses releasing the same book.
Software developers should in theory have the same option, where multiple publishers could be used, and the one that best sells the product makes the most money. The developers then are still the ones who profit on the software itself, and those who package and s
There is a huge difference between an illegal download, and file sharing, and that is the essence of the problem. To download means you only deprive the software publishers one sale, but when you SHARE(which most peer to peer networks use), then you are aiding one or more people to also make the unauthorized duplicate, and that is where the problem comes from.
So, you personally download a song, or a program...it wouldn't be seen as a big deal. The moment you share that download with 1 or more other people, you are now partially responsible for the lost revenues of each copy. Even if you accept the $0.99 cost as what is missing, if you help 10,000 people to download it "illegally", that adds up to how much money has been lost from the legit distributors.
You also may not be aware how much money it takes to actually write some of these programs. A team of 10 people(and that is LOW, many apps have a lot more than that), each being paid $50,000/year comes to $500,000/year. Now, picture that it takes 3-5 years to make most commercial applications, and you see the millions that had to go in to make the application. Just to break even, the studio needs to make at least that much money. If a program does not sell well, then that is a LOSS, and that is when illegal duplication really seems wrong. How many great developers have gone out of business over the years, who would still be around if all people who used the software actually paid for it?
WebOS had a lot of potential, and if HP had made the Pre 3 the priority and released it in March of 2011, it would probably have done quite well(with marketing support). WebOS still has a lot of potential as an OS, but HP has grossly mismanaged it and placed the priorities in the wrong places.
Basic concept, the Veer was NEVER going to be a wildly successful device, it was a niche device with its small size. The Pre 3 would have been your mainsteam/flagship, and tablet sales are very much linked to how popular the PHONES are. So, what did HP do, they pushed out the Veer, followed by the Touchpad, with no mention of the phone which would have sold more units than the other devices. Then, before they even try selling the Pre 3(which was already manufactured and boxed), they cancel the whole thing.
I maintain that if the Pre 3 was released at the time the Veer was, there would have been a lot more interest in the Touchpad when IT finally was released, and things could very well be different right now.
When "good enough" becomes a target, you get a major reduction in innovation and improvement. This is what happened with the auto industry, and it took a financial crisis to change things. The big question is why you don't want to see improvements to the technology, rather than asking how TV can be improved.
So, higher refresh rates...for a 1920x1080 display, you really do not NEED 240Hz, but if you think about it, if 240Hz were the norm, then that would enable higher resolution displays, which SHOULD be the goal of manufacturers. When computer displays for the most part are limited to 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 due to trying to share technology with the TV industry, that is where we should ALL be asking for better and better TV technology.
Many people I know never saw a "need" for stereo TV back when that first started showing up, and many people today don't see a need for surround sound, even when it DOES enhance the experience. Going 3D, in terms of having objects that pop out of the screen at viewers is useless, but well implemented 3D is more about depth of field, and giving that sense that what you are seeing has depth. Or even the move from regular resolution to HD, many initially didn't pay attention to how much better things look on a HD display compared to the older SD displays, but now, they would never want to go back.
Content is content, and that is not where you see change. Going from mono to stereo to surround sound may not have been NECESSARY, but it did improve the experience, and isn't THAT what it should all be about? Progress...why is that so horrible? For computers, we are generally happy that computers have gotten more powerful and allow for doing more things at home today than professional level computers could hope to do back in the early to mid 1990s, yet the only people who complain are those who don't like the idea of progress, or that it makes it so buying something new is a positive experience, rather than just throwing money away to get something that is in better condition, but is no better than what they had previously.
I have a general rule about purchases, and that is that expensive purchases SHOULD give you the sense that not only are you getting a refresh of what you had before, but the new item should be BETTER than the old. From cell phones to computers, or even to cars, wouldn't you feel you wasted your money if you are buying something, and there has been NO improvement? For televisions, if you spend $1200 today, and you spent $1200 four or five years ago, wouldn't you expect the new one to be better for the same price? Larger, or better quality, or more features, or better refresh rate, you want more for your money, because you expect there to have been progress.
In general, what is broken about TV is how the networks are generally aiming for the lowest common denominator, and are afraid to upset the "delicate sensibilities" of the people in the midwest of the USA. We should see a lot more programming that is aimed at adults, even without needing "adult content" to get there. People use profanity in the real world, it is all around us, yet TV programming does not properly reflect this. You want to know why people are drawn to the premium channels, it is because the original programming THERE has not been toned down.
Why don't you complain about Verizon too then? Verizon is far worse as a company, yet there is all this ill will toward AT&T. Is it cheaper on Verizon than AT&T? Verizon is the dominant player right now, so why not bash THEM for having the same price structure as AT&T?
In any merger, there will be a loss of middle management and operational jobs, that's a given. The problem is how people try to spin it. The FCC has not done a very good job trying to make the playing field level by forcing all towers to be open for any carrier that wants to use it(if they can run their own fiber of course).
Basic fact here, T-mobile is going to go away in the next few years, if AT&T gets them or not. This means there will be an automatic reduction in competition, no matter what. Using "loss of competition" actually makes ZERO sense with that in mind. The parent company of T-mobile has decided they want to drop T-mobile, and it is just a matter of time. If T-mobile goes away, will that make jobs or not? A merger would SAVE most of the operational jobs at this point, even if it does not "create them". Maintenance of cell phone towers is an area that would NOT see a loss of jobs.
Increased competition....AT&T really has a hard time competing with Verizon for overall coverage area, and could use more towers to fill in holes in coverage. AT&T really is NOT competitive with Verizon where I live for quality of service, but I hate Verizon. The merger with T-mobile would help. Sprint on the other hand, does not want to be seen as the "last place" carrier, so they want T-mobile to stick around....the problem is, T-mobile will NOT be around for all that much longer. Sprint has a coverage map that is even worse than AT&T, so they see a stronger AT&T as bad for them, meaning Sprint will be less competitive.
So, access to a larger national network....does that justify having higher prices when the cost to run the network is so much higher? T-mobile has the low prices just to get people in the door, even if they BARELY pull a profit on those accounts for the cost to provide the service. Growing the coverage area...since 2002, has T-mobile even grown their coverage map? If they don't have the income to expand, that would explain it and would make a merger with AT&T GOOD for customers.
So, there are downsides to the merger, like $150,000+ employees being out of work(their jobs would not be needed), but the upsides to having a better coverage map would be better. People just need to remember that there is something called the costs of operations, and a larger map will mean those costs will be higher.
You forget that compared to other countries, the USA and Canada have huge open areas of low population density compared to just about any other country out there. The USA has the highest population densities around the outside of the continental USA, with lower population densities in the center. By providing service in the low population areas, carriers LOSE money by providing access there, and only do it to allow customers in profitable areas to travel and still have service. The high costs you see from Verizon and AT&T are due to having a larger coverage area with service in more places that actually reduce profits, not increase them.
As far as the cost of computers over the past 30 years, they have gone down due to components going down in price. Improvements in the fabs have reduced costs to the chip makers, and volume alone has brought the price down. Volume....if you sell 10,000 units per month at $500 each might be necessary to make a profit. If your sales can go up to 1,000,000 units per month, you can drop the price down to $100 each, and you still make more profit due to the high volumes. Back in the mid 1980s, there were more companies selling computers and computer parts, but the Internet has made it so it is far easier to find the places that sell computers and computer parts. There is a TON of competition out there, but poorly run companies DO sink, and it makes sense that we have seen so many come and go over the years. The idea of volume discounts will ALWAYS favor the big players over the small.
There is a difference between people being naturally suicidal, and people who feel it would be better to kill themselves, rather than go to a job that is so bad, they really would prefer to be dead. I've had the idle thought that due to things like leaks and corporate security, those Foxconn employees were killed for trying to sell secrets to others and were caught by security.
The problem is that at the time those businesses got started, they were not in danger of lawsuits shutting them down the way things are today. Could you even come up with a new computer program without tripping over some software patent that is so obscure, no one would know about it?