In 1994, the feds signed a consent decree with Microsoft. This agreement did not alter MS's behavior, but it did give Microsoft unprecedented levels of information about the PC industry that NO ONE ELSE had access to. This gave them a strategic advantage that is still unmatched. This was the sole outcome of the 1994 consent devree.
Pre-1994, MS licensed their software based on how many units an OEM sold. Sell 100,000 PCs, pay for 100,000 licenses, even if 1,000 of those PCs has DR DOS on them. The consent decree outlawed this practice. Microsoft then (and now) licensed their software based on model lines. Sell 100,000 Model 50s, pay for 100,000 licenses. OEMs could sell PCs with other OSs without paying the licensing fee, as long as the PCs were in a model line that did not EVER have MS software installed. Naturally, such model lines were rare.
Pre-1994, Microsoft knew exactly how many PCs were sold by each OEM. Post-1994, they knew how many PCs were sold within each model line at each OEM. They could analyze pricing, advertising, hardware and software loads offered in each model line and determine what the public bought and how much they paid.
No one else can match this level of intelligence. No one else knows what people use their PCs for to the degree of detail that Microsoft knows. This resulted directly from the 1994 consent decree. I'm waiting to see what advantage MS will gain from this one. I'm glad at least one state AG gets it; without stringent behavioral guidelines, MS will alter their behavior in exactly the wrong direction.
This is all very interesting, but you don't need humoungous events like these to wipe out a bronze-age civilization.
This is absolutely correct. Generally all you need are about 30 Assyrian archers or 20 Yamato cavalry. Granted, you won't wipe out the entire civilization, but you will set them back enough that you can conquer them at your leisure. Try to hit the villagers and the houses first.
Who'd like to file suit with the FTC against Microsoft for false advertising? I think we all know that there is no such thing as absolute sceiruty, or that security is a process, not a result, etc etc. But does the average non-geek American know that? For that matter, does the marketing deparment at Microsoft know that?
You can't market a product as having qualities it doesn't have without getting into trouble with the FTC. Granted, MS will try to spin this as "Those bad Linux hackers will steal your data!" The fact remains that they've lied to the American consumer. I think they need to be forced to amend their advertising.
Oddly enough, this is not being marketed at people who can build a superior solution, in the same way that the Ford Festiva was not marketed at automotive engineers who owned a machine shop that they used to design and build their own engines...
I don't have access to a recording or a transcript, but I'm fairly sure it was "I took the initiative in creating the internet." He didn't provide funding for the creation of HTML or HTTP; nor did he provide funds for httpd or apache development. I would suggest that if he used the phrase "world wide web" then he was being deceptive.
All in all, he would have been better off saying "I took the initiative in funding the internet; without that initiative, we wouldn't have the internet in its current form."
No, but when you design a CPU (as AMD did), you plan for the heatsink to fall off. And as for being run over...Dell at one point had laptops that were rugged enough to be run over by a car. you wouldn't need that level of design in a desktop case, but it is logical to assume that laptops will take more abuse.
Sorry, but if your "gangs" of central Ohio were set down in the middle of some neighborhoods in New York, your hard core gangbangers would be crying, bloody and naked within five minutes...
Who was responsible for security on their ariplanes? The airlines. Who skimped on security because it was too expensive? The airlines. Who lobbied Congress to prevent governmental mandates that would have required greater security? The airlines.
In case you hadn't noticed, they have already laid of several thousand people - tens of thousands, actually. In a capitalistic economy, if you can't find enough customers, your business goes under.
I believe that the airlines negligently contributed to the tragedies of 9/11. They didn't pull the trigger, so to speak, but they left a loaded gun where the bad guys could find it.
In the same vein, Microsoft is guilty of negligence in the design of their OS and applications. They have created products whose purpose is to be connected to the National Information Infrastructure. They have cut costs, in part, by ignoring security issues.
Here's my guess...phone numbers are not likely to be the subject of a trademark dispute because they are NUMBERS. Companies rarely trademark numbers - it may not even be possible (any IP lawyers out there?)
HOWEVER, if you began marketing your number as 1-888-GO-PEPSI, you'd be openeing yourself up for trademark violation lawsuit. If you marketed the number as 1-888-IM-RESPIRATING, I doubt you'd have a problem.
This is EXACTLY the same attitude that MS has towards security. An exploit was discovered once upon a time that gave the administrator access to all user's passwords. "What's the big deal?" said MS. "Surely you trust your administrators! They could change the passwords if they wanted to, anyway!" The correct answer would have been "Oh no! An exploit, which combined with others could allow a bad guy to do terrible things!"
So, your response is "What's the big deal? Surely you trust the people you allow onto your box!" The correct answer is the same as above.
Never underestimate the creativity of the bad guys. Someone will take this exploit and combine it with others and gain remote root. We will all look back and smack our heads for missing his obvious combination.
Imagine this - your employer tells you that you will be fired because you said "GET LOST!" to your boss. (freedom of speech)
Imagine this - your employer tells you that you will be fired because you said "YA MORON!" to a customer. (freedom of speech)
Imagine this - your employer tells you that you will be fired because they searched your desk and found cocaine. (freedom from unlawful search or seizure)
Imagine this - your employer tells you that you will be fired and you are not able to appeal the decision to anyone. (due process)
Imagine this - your employer tells you that because someone else says you stole from the company but won't tell you who. (freedom to confront witnesses against you)
Imagine this - the government says that your employer, a private citizen, can't fire you. (freedom of association).
Governments are more restrained than private citizens.
The manuyfacturer is not the copyright holder. The photographer is. Those disposable cameras from Kodak "encrypt" photographs by storing them in an unusable state, substituting for each color the complementary one. (They call these "negatives"). Kodak develops (or could, anyway) the pictures for you but does not hold the copyright.
I suppose it would be possible to award the copyright to the manufacturer in the rental agreement, rendering my point moot.
Thankfully, it seems that now the major browsers have realized the errors of their ways
The "major browser" is internet explorer. They don't worry about time to market because there's no need to out-feature the competition...because there is none. I wouldn't be too thankful for that.
I don't think this is going to stop companies from releasing software that has bugs in it.
I don't think anyone (except PHBs) truly believe it will; I don't even think it can. Software is inherently buggy unless you pay orders of magnitude more than you can afford to (good, fast, cheap)
What CAN happen is that vendors be forced away from saying "This is a known issue. This is fixed in the next version of Product X." In other words, force vendors to provide free bug fixes. Perhaps EULAs should specify an end-of-life for the product; then purchasers KNOW exactly what they are getting.
IANAL, but I suggest you consult one, preferably one with expertise in this area - specifically, one who knows what you can and can't do with regard to testing network or application security. It would be very easy for a situation to go south on you. Testing security on systems you do not own may be crime in your jurisdiction. One suspicious-paranoid-incompentent manager or network supervisor is all it would take to turn you into a felon (and maybe a terrorist) for life.
(I know, this post has no point and is completely off-topic, but I've been worshipping Joe Satriani from afar for over ten years now and have NEVER heard him mentioned by ANYBODY before.)
Slashdot Mirror
In 1994, the feds signed a consent decree with Microsoft. This agreement did not alter MS's behavior, but it did give Microsoft unprecedented levels of information about the PC industry that NO ONE ELSE had access to. This gave them a strategic advantage that is still unmatched. This was the sole outcome of the 1994 consent devree.
Pre-1994, MS licensed their software based on how many units an OEM sold. Sell 100,000 PCs, pay for 100,000 licenses, even if 1,000 of those PCs has DR DOS on them. The consent decree outlawed this practice. Microsoft then (and now) licensed their software based on model lines. Sell 100,000 Model 50s, pay for 100,000 licenses. OEMs could sell PCs with other OSs without paying the licensing fee, as long as the PCs were in a model line that did not EVER have MS software installed. Naturally, such model lines were rare.
Pre-1994, Microsoft knew exactly how many PCs were sold by each OEM. Post-1994, they knew how many PCs were sold within each model line at each OEM. They could analyze pricing, advertising, hardware and software loads offered in each model line and determine what the public bought and how much they paid.
No one else can match this level of intelligence. No one else knows what people use their PCs for to the degree of detail that Microsoft knows. This resulted directly from the 1994 consent decree. I'm waiting to see what advantage MS will gain from this one. I'm glad at least one state AG gets it; without stringent behavioral guidelines, MS will alter their behavior in exactly the wrong direction.
Quality, time, or cost. Estimate any two. You can't analyze all three.
This is all very interesting, but you don't need humoungous events like these to wipe out a bronze-age civilization.
This is absolutely correct. Generally all you need are about 30 Assyrian archers or 20 Yamato cavalry. Granted, you won't wipe out the entire civilization, but you will set them back enough that you can conquer them at your leisure. Try to hit the villagers and the houses first.
"Avast ye corporate swabs! Prepare to be boarded!"
Computer chips on computer cards in computer boxes in computer cabinets in the computer room...
Who'd like to file suit with the FTC against Microsoft for false advertising? I think we all know that there is no such thing as absolute sceiruty, or that security is a process, not a result, etc etc. But does the average non-geek American know that? For that matter, does the marketing deparment at Microsoft know that?
You can't market a product as having qualities it doesn't have without getting into trouble with the FTC. Granted, MS will try to spin this as "Those bad Linux hackers will steal your data!" The fact remains that they've lied to the American consumer. I think they need to be forced to amend their advertising.
Oddly enough, this is not being marketed at people who can build a superior solution, in the same way that the Ford Festiva was not marketed at automotive engineers who owned a machine shop that they used to design and build their own engines...
I don't have access to a recording or a transcript, but I'm fairly sure it was "I took the initiative in creating the internet." He didn't provide funding for the creation of HTML or HTTP; nor did he provide funds for httpd or apache development. I would suggest that if he used the phrase "world wide web" then he was being deceptive.
All in all, he would have been better off saying "I took the initiative in funding the internet; without that initiative, we wouldn't have the internet in its current form."
No, but when you design a CPU (as AMD did), you plan for the heatsink to fall off. And as for being run over...Dell at one point had laptops that were rugged enough to be run over by a car. you wouldn't need that level of design in a desktop case, but it is logical to assume that laptops will take more abuse.
Sorry, but if your "gangs" of central Ohio were set down in the middle of some neighborhoods in New York, your hard core gangbangers would be crying, bloody and naked within five minutes...
Who was responsible for security on their ariplanes? The airlines. Who skimped on security because it was too expensive? The airlines. Who lobbied Congress to prevent governmental mandates that would have required greater security? The airlines.
In case you hadn't noticed, they have already laid of several thousand people - tens of thousands, actually. In a capitalistic economy, if you can't find enough customers, your business goes under.
I believe that the airlines negligently contributed to the tragedies of 9/11. They didn't pull the trigger, so to speak, but they left a loaded gun where the bad guys could find it.
In the same vein, Microsoft is guilty of negligence in the design of their OS and applications. They have created products whose purpose is to be connected to the National Information Infrastructure. They have cut costs, in part, by ignoring security issues.
Here's my guess...phone numbers are not likely to be the subject of a trademark dispute because they are NUMBERS. Companies rarely trademark numbers - it may not even be possible (any IP lawyers out there?)
HOWEVER, if you began marketing your number as 1-888-GO-PEPSI, you'd be openeing yourself up for trademark violation lawsuit. If you marketed the number as 1-888-IM-RESPIRATING, I doubt you'd have a problem.
This is EXACTLY the same attitude that MS has towards security. An exploit was discovered once upon a time that gave the administrator access to all user's passwords. "What's the big deal?" said MS. "Surely you trust your administrators! They could change the passwords if they wanted to, anyway!" The correct answer would have been "Oh no! An exploit, which combined with others could allow a bad guy to do terrible things!"
So, your response is "What's the big deal? Surely you trust the people you allow onto your box!" The correct answer is the same as above.
Never underestimate the creativity of the bad guys. Someone will take this exploit and combine it with others and gain remote root. We will all look back and smack our heads for missing his obvious combination.
Imagine this - your employer tells you that you will be fired because you said "GET LOST!" to your boss. (freedom of speech)
Imagine this - your employer tells you that you will be fired because you said "YA MORON!" to a customer. (freedom of speech)
Imagine this - your employer tells you that you will be fired because they searched your desk and found cocaine. (freedom from unlawful search or seizure)
Imagine this - your employer tells you that you will be fired and you are not able to appeal the decision to anyone. (due process)
Imagine this - your employer tells you that because someone else says you stole from the company but won't tell you who. (freedom to confront witnesses against you)
Imagine this - the government says that your employer, a private citizen, can't fire you. (freedom of association).
Governments are more restrained than private citizens.
The manuyfacturer is not the copyright holder. The photographer is. Those disposable cameras from Kodak "encrypt" photographs by storing them in an unusable state, substituting for each color the complementary one. (They call these "negatives"). Kodak develops (or could, anyway) the pictures for you but does not hold the copyright.
I suppose it would be possible to award the copyright to the manufacturer in the rental agreement, rendering my point moot.
Au contraire. Use your credit card and be sure you have fraud protection clauses in your cardholder agreement.
Why mars? Why not the moon?
How did they grow out of ed? Why do parentheses have to be escaped in regexes? Where can I find such esoteric history online?
Thankfully, it seems that now the major browsers have realized the errors of their ways
The "major browser" is internet explorer. They don't worry about time to market because there's no need to out-feature the competition...because there is none. I wouldn't be too thankful for that.
I don't think this is going to stop companies from releasing software that has bugs in it.
I don't think anyone (except PHBs) truly believe it will; I don't even think it can. Software is inherently buggy unless you pay orders of magnitude more than you can afford to (good, fast, cheap)
What CAN happen is that vendors be forced away from saying "This is a known issue. This is fixed in the next version of Product X." In other words, force vendors to provide free bug fixes. Perhaps EULAs should specify an end-of-life for the product; then purchasers KNOW exactly what they are getting.
The more Oracle/Microsoft/etc squeeze to inflate their bottom line, the more people abandon ship and switch to OS.
Ahem...
"The more Oracle/Microsoft/etc tighten the grip, the more systems will slip through their fingers."
IANARF
I Am Not A Radio Frequency? What?
IANAL, but I suggest you consult one, preferably one with expertise in this area - specifically, one who knows what you can and can't do with regard to testing network or application security. It would be very easy for a situation to go south on you. Testing security on systems you do not own may be crime in your jurisdiction. One suspicious-paranoid-incompentent manager or network supervisor is all it would take to turn you into a felon (and maybe a terrorist) for life.
ESR listens to Satriani! Satriani ROOLZ!
(I know, this post has no point and is completely off-topic, but I've been worshipping Joe Satriani from afar for over ten years now and have NEVER heard him mentioned by ANYBODY before.)
You need geritol! You have irony-poor blood!