I had a new house built about a year ago. The builder charged me $30 a drop, but that was only for the cabling. I had to bring my own switch and jacks, and wire the jacks myself.
No biggie, but even with the jacks and switch, I think you're closer, if not under, the $500 then the $1K. And yes, I put a jack in every room in the house, and two in some.
Yeah, nice thought. But I think that you missed the "3 million square feet" that MSFT is building up the street. This will be a MSFT enclave, and Red Hat would be a tough sell there. Would make the Intranet an interesting place, though...
I think what made it cost effective in this particular instance was the deal with MSFT for the office space--I can certainly imagine that MSFT either made it a condition of their locating there, or chose to locate there because of the geek-friendliness of the residences. I would certainly be surprised if less that 25% of the homes went to MSFT employees just due to promimity to their work--so they demanded a MSFT-employee-friendly infrastructure.
You think you only had to "dump an insane amount of money into licenses" once, and now you're done, that the bulk of the cost is behind you? That simply isn't how it's gonna work--be prepared to spend, in the next few years, (insane amount of money)*(n).
Wouldn't it be better to cut the strings now, and save the next few rounds of insane spending, than throw good money after bad?
More like the locksmith answering: get a new house. Oh, but this time, you can't buy one; you have to rent. And, there's cameras everywhere to determine if you're using your rental the way that the landlords think you should; if you have a disagreement, you're evicted.
Maybe this is trollbait, but oh well. What's karma for anyway?
If you're not intending it to be used by others, it'd be fairly obvious.
Where I'm from, we call that "requiring a password." If my excess bandwidth cost me $100/G, you can sure as hell bet that I'd password protect my base-station. But, as it is, who cares? So I don't. But the problem of "recognizing permissive use" has been solved. If you fail to avail yourself of the those tools, I can't be very sorry for you.
I only use Windows when I have to, to be sure, so maybe I'm out of touch. But I sure didn't think the penetration of XP was that large, yet--is Office Depot really ready to sacrfice 75% of their customers?
I guess just because it's ready for XP doesn't mean that it won't work on older versions of winders. On the other hand, I see lots of users of win98 knowing what it feels like to use a Mac and go shopping for software in an office supply store...
Hint--they won't be paying $199 just to shop with you.
Really, the situation you describe is very similar to what the oldtime Mac-heads who like OS X are going through. For many examples of how to boil down these kinds of instructions, see Mac OS X hints. Basically: KISS. Like, three commands for one concept? How would you like to open an application by clicking it, dragging it to another location, and then clicking it again?
The type of person who buys an iMac at the retail Apple Store... doesn't know what "megahertz" means
I'm guessing, but I think that I have had more contact with purchasers at the Apple store than you. And while that is true for some of them, I think you might be surprised to learn how many come in with Dell ads in hand, and compare feature-to-feature. It is a lot of money, after all, and so most folks make a very careful, very informed purchase.
Nevertheless, let's say they do buy the iMac, pretty lighting and all. Hooray! But then they take it home, and discover that they can't do things that they expected to do, things that their PC friends/coworkers can do--like KaZaa and video conferencing, to name two. And they know that they paid more money for thier particular choice. Now--do you think that they are likely to purchase another Mac, or recommend Macs to their friends? In spite of the lighting effects.
For why this number may not be accurate, see above; boils down to 1) are you counting installations, including servers, or desktops in your evaluation? Servers naturally don't access google, but depending on the app that you're developing, a server install of Linux may or may not matter to you. 2) People forge their UA to defeat sniffers; I think less folks do that than you would think, but I think Linux users are more likely to than others.
btw, the stats show that 1% of browsers accessing Google were using Linux; 4% were using some version of a Mac; 4% were "other"--meaning what, I dunno. Are there that many Be/Amiga users out there?
Look, I love Apple products--I really do. But Jobs has always suffered from missing the forest for the trees, and this latest example is just another clear indication of that. "Making sure the light was just right so they glowed just like they should?" Meanwhile: the processor speed is becoming more and more of a factor, third party developers are only barely on board, and when they are their support is lackluster, Apple's strategy for penetration into vertical markets and turnkey solutions is represented by some powerpoint slides, and they haven't given raises to the employees for two years. The attitude still is: if you don't get it, it's not worthwhile trying to convert you.
Apple needs to keep its eye on the ball, and while the design details make for an impressive presentation, you're at least partially selling to a market that knows how to evaluate on the basis of third party benchmarks to price ratio. While design aspects are, I think, part of what makes owning an Apple a special experience, I think the resource of time is being squandered on those concerns and left the meat of the consideration go begging.
The core of the problem: to buy a Mac, you spend more to purchase a machine with less speed, and will work with fewer third parties. All the nice lighting in the world won't fix that, and so I wish they spent that 4 hours a week thinking about improving those things instead. However, in the long run, that's undoubtedly harder--and it requires that Apple folks work with partners, and they are often too self-righteous to do so.
These aren't good answers, but maybe it start you thinking "outside of the box."
1) Will MSFT really provide this indemnity protection? Do they say they will? If so, has that provision ever been tested? If they don't, or won't, then of course it's not fair to compare apples to oranges.
2) OTOH, you might try 'speciality' insurance companies. I have no idea what the rates would be like, but you can certainly buy insurance to cover any eventuality you can imagine--another poster here once talked about purchasing insurance against the loss of moon rock that they were testing. Which is just to say--just because "Linux insurance" isn't on a regular schedule doesn't mean that some actuarian won't give you a price. If you need to make calls, I would start with "Lloyd's of London", known for providing insurance for unusual events.
Finally, I think your concern is a real one--what's to stop me from using code that I developed elsewhere and contribute it back into the Linux source?
Although this is a good idea in principle, it leaves open a few questions:
The CompUSA delivery method is only an advantage over apps that you can't currently download and unlock. Many of the small apps that you mention are like this already.
And will this new delivery method accomodate the apps that aren't downloadable? I don't believe the article specified. If it doesn't, it's only useful for folks without broadband connections ie home users, but no businesses, not even home based ones. OTOH, most apps that do require the CD do so for either a) copy protection or b) size of the app. How this will work with copy protection that requires a CD install remains to be seen.
So in the absence of more information, it appears this may only really help home-users with dial-up connections who desire big applications. Otherwise you're back to mail order.
Yeah, maybe, as far as email goes. But you'll still need VPN to access the file server, where the resources/research/collabrative documents live. Maybe you could do that through an https login, which has a familiar interface and is compatible with nearly everything that can use a web browser. But then the docs themselves wouldn't be secure, right? So forget it.
Your argument, then, is that the presence of punishment is the causual factor for the creation of rapists, not the porn itself?
Not knowing the incidence of habitual porn viewing among those not convicted of rapes and porn viewing is obviously a missing link--but I think one could just as easily conclude that it would be the consumption of porn to the degree, or of the nature, that warrants punishment, that would be the causual factor in the creation of rapists. To leap to the blame of religion as a "threat to women", um, simply doesn't make a lot of sense.
To satisfy your argument, you would need non-rapists who had viewed porn in the same quantity and quality as those convicted of rapes, but had not been punished for doing so. And your quote simply lacks that data, and so your conclusion is, frankly, off-base. Call me a jesus freak, which I ain't, but it still won't explain the lack of logic.
I guess I've come to the conclusion that most so called "environmentalists" are really about "feel good" solutions, and not ones that actually work.
Based on a sample of one? So you would say that it's fair to assume that Minnesotans who live with female roomates should have nothing to do with a field that involves statistics?
I'm not a scientfic historian, but couldn't points "2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work." and "7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation" be used to discredit a scientist on the order of Galileo? Or, for that matter, couldn't 7 and "6. The discoverer has worked in isolation" be used against Einstein? I am sure to be corrected if wrong, but I always kinda thought Einstein worked pretty much in isolation.
He says:
"Over the next week I threw everything at it I could think of", and then mentions Office and a VPN connection.
Well, maybe I have more imagination, but here's three that I am having trouble with, right now, today:
Video conferencing software that will interop with what everyone else uses, since not everyone else uses a Mac, much as I'd like that to be;
wireless "cell" modem connectivity--there's stuff out there that has "unsupport", but if Verizon works with Macs, why don't they just say so?
Gigabit ethernet pci cards for older G4s. Lots of options as lokng as you like Asante--which I personally do, but my manager wants more price and performance choices, and I can only offer one solution.
Now, I'm the biggest fan-boy of Macs that you'll find--but I sure wish they had better third party hardware, and software, support. This last week, as a new Mac IT guy in a mostly PC office, I have learned alot about why Macs only have a fraction of the market. To pay more, per machine, but to have it capable of less, is inexcusable--and will need to be fixed before Apple sees too many more CTOs like Geoff Barrall.
(Although certainly, the more CTOs like Geoff, the more likely third-party support is going to happen. He is the guy talking to vendors, and they'll take his request for Mac support more seriously than they'll take mine. Hey, Geoff, how about asking Verzion to support Macs!)
Researchers on Europa today concluded that there is no possibility of life on any of the planets in a closer orbit to the sun than Jupiter. "The intense radiation emitting from the hottest known object in our solar system, the sun, would clearly fry any organism that attempted to evolve. Additionally, the sun gives off tremendous amounts of radiation that would surely prove poisionous to any organization not killed by the heat."
When asked if the atmosphere that surrounds the third planet would be protection from such radiation, the researcher responded, "Almost certainly that thin atmosphere would not be sufficient. It allows light to penetrate, and light itself is the disturbing factor in this scenario."
In other news, the government of Wqty used the science budget previously set aside for extra-Europa life detection to kill Europans on Jupiter-side. "My God! Do you know that the government of Ghyt kills it's own people? How could we pass on an invitation like that?"
Does anyone know of an OSS license that includes some statement to the effect of: "This software is free for use, redistribution, and modification by any entity for any purpose, as long as any form of it is never used for military purposes."
No, and that's probably because such a clause would be impossible to define. For example, let's say such a clause was added to Apache.
Would that mean that the Army couldn't host their website on Apache? Probably. Would that mean that Boeing couldn't host their website on Apache? They make both civilian and military products. What about steel importers, who don't know where their product goes? It is reasonable to consider that their product would be used in the war machine, but has significant peacetime uses as well.
Bottom line: if you want to keep control of your code, and be able to dictate what is done with it, you need to keep it closed source. When you Open a door, you don't get to decide who walks in; that's the very reason that doors were invented in the first place.
Always play while "straight". I'm talking about mental capacity here, not sexual preference. Put away the weed, the beer, whatever.
I can see you've never played Call of Cthulhu while on mescaline. That's an experience I haven't forgotten after 10 years. My gamemaster described the nighttime Amazonion rainforest surrounding us, and I could hear the crickets and feel the hot humidity. And there was a palpable, unspeakable evil lying out there...
Speaking as someone who has had to make that call, it is tough knowing where to draw the line. I agree--being consistent is almost as important as simply giving you the answer that you want to hear. Sometimes, it's better just to know that if you're denied on the first attempt, you'll be denied forevermore--so there's no need for kabuki on your part with subsequent techs.
Although, I've never tried to return another consumer good worth a few thousand dollars to know how big brands treat it--but I guess I would expect less resistance from Best Buy than from the Apple Store; when your margins are in the billions of dollars a year, a little more can be spent on Customer Satisfaction. Then again, ever try to have a car still in warranty replaced instead of repaired, even for a serious defect?
You have an expectation that a giant company is going to handle these kind of legal issues for you
I don't have that expectation. This is guided by the fact that Microsoft has been found in a court of law to be in the chronic use of illegal business practices. It's unfortunate for you that you trust them simply becasue they're large; however, I haven't, I don't, and I will not.
More to the point: now that this is a revealed issue, will you trust them again in the future?
Here's how: ignorance is no defense. If you, or your manager, or your purchasing agent, or whatever, doesn't have the time to do due diligence on technology that your company depends on, you are working too fast.
Also, this brings up a related issue: you trusted Microsoft before, and they were found to be liars in court, and for which you may well have your product(s) pulled from the marketplace until you pay some anonymous company money. Are you going to trust Microsoft claims at face value again? Wouldn't you rather have code that you know, through your own analysis, to be unencumbered?
Here's where the troll comes out from under the bridge: you, sir, are using technology developed by a company found in a court of law to be guilty of illegal business practices. In spite of that finding, you continue to depend on their products, and on their stated claims about their legality. If you find yourself now crosswise, I'm afraid I can't offer you my sympathy.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a new house built about a year ago. The builder charged me $30 a drop, but that was only for the cabling. I had to bring my own switch and jacks, and wire the jacks myself.
No biggie, but even with the jacks and switch, I think you're closer, if not under, the $500 then the $1K. And yes, I put a jack in every room in the house, and two in some.
Yeah, nice thought. But I think that you missed the "3 million square feet" that MSFT is building up the street. This will be a MSFT enclave, and Red Hat would be a tough sell there. Would make the Intranet an interesting place, though...
I think what made it cost effective in this particular instance was the deal with MSFT for the office space--I can certainly imagine that MSFT either made it a condition of their locating there, or chose to locate there because of the geek-friendliness of the residences. I would certainly be surprised if less that 25% of the homes went to MSFT employees just due to promimity to their work--so they demanded a MSFT-employee-friendly infrastructure.
You think you only had to "dump an insane amount of money into licenses" once, and now you're done, that the bulk of the cost is behind you? That simply isn't how it's gonna work--be prepared to spend, in the next few years, (insane amount of money)*(n).
Wouldn't it be better to cut the strings now, and save the next few rounds of insane spending, than throw good money after bad?
More like the locksmith answering: get a new house. Oh, but this time, you can't buy one; you have to rent. And, there's cameras everywhere to determine if you're using your rental the way that the landlords think you should; if you have a disagreement, you're evicted.
Maybe this is trollbait, but oh well. What's karma for anyway?
If you're not intending it to be used by others, it'd be fairly obvious.
Where I'm from, we call that "requiring a password." If my excess bandwidth cost me $100/G, you can sure as hell bet that I'd password protect my base-station. But, as it is, who cares? So I don't. But the problem of "recognizing permissive use" has been solved. If you fail to avail yourself of the those tools, I can't be very sorry for you.
I only use Windows when I have to, to be sure, so maybe I'm out of touch. But I sure didn't think the penetration of XP was that large, yet--is Office Depot really ready to sacrfice 75% of their customers?
I guess just because it's ready for XP doesn't mean that it won't work on older versions of winders. On the other hand, I see lots of users of win98 knowing what it feels like to use a Mac and go shopping for software in an office supply store...
Hint--they won't be paying $199 just to shop with you.
...and the result is fink.
Really, the situation you describe is very similar to what the oldtime Mac-heads who like OS X are going through. For many examples of how to boil down these kinds of instructions, see Mac OS X hints.
Basically: KISS. Like, three commands for one concept? How would you like to open an application by clicking it, dragging it to another location, and then clicking it again?
The type of person who buys an iMac at the retail Apple Store
I'm guessing, but I think that I have had more contact with purchasers at the Apple store than you. And while that is true for some of them, I think you might be surprised to learn how many come in with Dell ads in hand, and compare feature-to-feature. It is a lot of money, after all, and so most folks make a very careful, very informed purchase.
Nevertheless, let's say they do buy the iMac, pretty lighting and all. Hooray! But then they take it home, and discover that they can't do things that they expected to do, things that their PC friends/coworkers can do--like KaZaa and video conferencing, to name two. And they know that they paid more money for thier particular choice. Now--do you think that they are likely to purchase another Mac, or recommend Macs to their friends? In spite of the lighting effects.
Ok, is Google popular enough?
Zeitgeist.
For why this number may not be accurate, see above; boils down to 1) are you counting installations, including servers, or desktops in your evaluation? Servers naturally don't access google, but depending on the app that you're developing, a server install of Linux may or may not matter to you. 2) People forge their UA to defeat sniffers; I think less folks do that than you would think, but I think Linux users are more likely to than others.
btw, the stats show that 1% of browsers accessing Google were using Linux; 4% were using some version of a Mac; 4% were "other"--meaning what, I dunno. Are there that many Be/Amiga users out there?
Look, I love Apple products--I really do. But Jobs has always suffered from missing the forest for the trees, and this latest example is just another clear indication of that. "Making sure the light was just right so they glowed just like they should?" Meanwhile: the processor speed is becoming more and more of a factor, third party developers are only barely on board, and when they are their support is lackluster, Apple's strategy for penetration into vertical markets and turnkey solutions is represented by some powerpoint slides, and they haven't given raises to the employees for two years. The attitude still is: if you don't get it, it's not worthwhile trying to convert you.
Apple needs to keep its eye on the ball, and while the design details make for an impressive presentation, you're at least partially selling to a market that knows how to evaluate on the basis of third party benchmarks to price ratio. While design aspects are, I think, part of what makes owning an Apple a special experience, I think the resource of time is being squandered on those concerns and left the meat of the consideration go begging.
The core of the problem: to buy a Mac, you spend more to purchase a machine with less speed, and will work with fewer third parties. All the nice lighting in the world won't fix that, and so I wish they spent that 4 hours a week thinking about improving those things instead. However, in the long run, that's undoubtedly harder--and it requires that Apple folks work with partners, and they are often too self-righteous to do so.
These aren't good answers, but maybe it start you thinking "outside of the box."
1) Will MSFT really provide this indemnity protection? Do they say they will? If so, has that provision ever been tested? If they don't, or won't, then of course it's not fair to compare apples to oranges.
2) OTOH, you might try 'speciality' insurance companies. I have no idea what the rates would be like, but you can certainly buy insurance to cover any eventuality you can imagine--another poster here once talked about purchasing insurance against the loss of moon rock that they were testing. Which is just to say--just because "Linux insurance" isn't on a regular schedule doesn't mean that some actuarian won't give you a price. If you need to make calls, I would start with "Lloyd's of London", known for providing insurance for unusual events.
Finally, I think your concern is a real one--what's to stop me from using code that I developed elsewhere and contribute it back into the Linux source?
Although this is a good idea in principle, it leaves open a few questions:
- The CompUSA delivery method is only an advantage over apps that you can't currently download and unlock. Many of the small apps that you mention are like this already.
- And will this new delivery method accomodate the apps that aren't downloadable? I don't believe the article specified. If it doesn't, it's only useful for folks without broadband connections ie home users, but no businesses, not even home based ones. OTOH, most apps that do require the CD do so for either a) copy protection or b) size of the app. How this will work with copy protection that requires a CD install remains to be seen.
So in the absence of more information, it appears this may only really help home-users with dial-up connections who desire big applications. Otherwise you're back to mail order.Yeah, maybe, as far as email goes. But you'll still need VPN to access the file server, where the resources/research/collabrative documents live. Maybe you could do that through an https login, which has a familiar interface and is compatible with nearly everything that can use a web browser. But then the docs themselves wouldn't be secure, right? So forget it.
Your argument, then, is that the presence of punishment is the causual factor for the creation of rapists, not the porn itself?
Not knowing the incidence of habitual porn viewing among those not convicted of rapes and porn viewing is obviously a missing link--but I think one could just as easily conclude that it would be the consumption of porn to the degree, or of the nature, that warrants punishment, that would be the causual factor in the creation of rapists. To leap to the blame of religion as a "threat to women", um, simply doesn't make a lot of sense.
To satisfy your argument, you would need non-rapists who had viewed porn in the same quantity and quality as those convicted of rapes, but had not been punished for doing so. And your quote simply lacks that data, and so your conclusion is, frankly, off-base. Call me a jesus freak, which I ain't, but it still won't explain the lack of logic.
I guess I've come to the conclusion that most so called "environmentalists" are really about "feel good" solutions, and not ones that actually work.
Based on a sample of one? So you would say that it's fair to assume that Minnesotans who live with female roomates should have nothing to do with a field that involves statistics?
I'm not a scientfic historian, but couldn't points "2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work." and "7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation" be used to discredit a scientist on the order of Galileo? Or, for that matter, couldn't 7 and "6. The discoverer has worked in isolation" be used against Einstein? I am sure to be corrected if wrong, but I always kinda thought Einstein worked pretty much in isolation.
So these aren't a litmus test--just a leaning.
I'm a line cook here in the US and there is quite a bit more to flipping American Pancakes
No offense, sir, but it never ceases to amaze me the wide variety that is the slashdot readership.
He says: "Over the next week I threw everything at it I could think of", and then mentions Office and a VPN connection.
Well, maybe I have more imagination, but here's three that I am having trouble with, right now, today:
- Video conferencing software that will interop with what everyone else uses, since not everyone else uses a Mac, much as I'd like that to be;
- wireless "cell" modem connectivity--there's stuff out there that has "unsupport", but if Verizon works with Macs, why don't they just say so?
- Gigabit ethernet pci cards for older G4s. Lots of options as lokng as you like Asante--which I personally do, but my manager wants more price and performance choices, and I can only offer one solution.
Now, I'm the biggest fan-boy of Macs that you'll find--but I sure wish they had better third party hardware, and software, support. This last week, as a new Mac IT guy in a mostly PC office, I have learned alot about why Macs only have a fraction of the market. To pay more, per machine, but to have it capable of less, is inexcusable--and will need to be fixed before Apple sees too many more CTOs like Geoff Barrall.(Although certainly, the more CTOs like Geoff, the more likely third-party support is going to happen. He is the guy talking to vendors, and they'll take his request for Mac support more seriously than they'll take mine. Hey, Geoff, how about asking Verzion to support Macs!)
NEWSWIRE f5:37:g4
Researchers on Europa today concluded that there is no possibility of life on any of the planets in a closer orbit to the sun than Jupiter. "The intense radiation emitting from the hottest known object in our solar system, the sun, would clearly fry any organism that attempted to evolve. Additionally, the sun gives off tremendous amounts of radiation that would surely prove poisionous to any organization not killed by the heat."
When asked if the atmosphere that surrounds the third planet would be protection from such radiation, the researcher responded, "Almost certainly that thin atmosphere would not be sufficient. It allows light to penetrate, and light itself is the disturbing factor in this scenario."
In other news, the government of Wqty used the science budget previously set aside for extra-Europa life detection to kill Europans on Jupiter-side. "My God! Do you know that the government of Ghyt kills it's own people? How could we pass on an invitation like that?"
Does anyone know of an OSS license that includes some statement to the effect of: "This software is free for use, redistribution, and modification by any entity for any purpose, as long as any form of it is never used for military purposes."
No, and that's probably because such a clause would be impossible to define. For example, let's say such a clause was added to Apache.
Would that mean that the Army couldn't host their website on Apache? Probably. Would that mean that Boeing couldn't host their website on Apache? They make both civilian and military products. What about steel importers, who don't know where their product goes? It is reasonable to consider that their product would be used in the war machine, but has significant peacetime uses as well.
Bottom line: if you want to keep control of your code, and be able to dictate what is done with it, you need to keep it closed source. When you Open a door, you don't get to decide who walks in; that's the very reason that doors were invented in the first place.
Always play while "straight". I'm talking about mental capacity here, not sexual preference. Put away the weed, the beer, whatever.
I can see you've never played Call of Cthulhu while on mescaline. That's an experience I haven't forgotten after 10 years. My gamemaster described the nighttime Amazonion rainforest surrounding us, and I could hear the crickets and feel the hot humidity. And there was a palpable, unspeakable evil lying out there...
Speaking as someone who has had to make that call, it is tough knowing where to draw the line. I agree--being consistent is almost as important as simply giving you the answer that you want to hear. Sometimes, it's better just to know that if you're denied on the first attempt, you'll be denied forevermore--so there's no need for kabuki on your part with subsequent techs.
Although, I've never tried to return another consumer good worth a few thousand dollars to know how big brands treat it--but I guess I would expect less resistance from Best Buy than from the Apple Store; when your margins are in the billions of dollars a year, a little more can be spent on Customer Satisfaction. Then again, ever try to have a car still in warranty replaced instead of repaired, even for a serious defect?
You have an expectation that a giant company is going to handle these kind of legal issues for you
I don't have that expectation. This is guided by the fact that Microsoft has been found in a court of law to be in the chronic use of illegal business practices. It's unfortunate for you that you trust them simply becasue they're large; however, I haven't, I don't, and I will not.
More to the point: now that this is a revealed issue, will you trust them again in the future?
I just can't see logically how I could be liable
Here's how: ignorance is no defense. If you, or your manager, or your purchasing agent, or whatever, doesn't have the time to do due diligence on technology that your company depends on, you are working too fast.
Also, this brings up a related issue: you trusted Microsoft before, and they were found to be liars in court, and for which you may well have your product(s) pulled from the marketplace until you pay some anonymous company money. Are you going to trust Microsoft claims at face value again? Wouldn't you rather have code that you know, through your own analysis, to be unencumbered?
Here's where the troll comes out from under the bridge: you, sir, are using technology developed by a company found in a court of law to be guilty of illegal business practices. In spite of that finding, you continue to depend on their products, and on their stated claims about their legality. If you find yourself now crosswise, I'm afraid I can't offer you my sympathy.