Haven't you learned yet that Microsoft can do whatever it wants to, even breaking the fundamental laws of computer science?
I remember from the C# reference that 'swap' routine that if it produced the desired output would be a miracle. But I can't talk about that because I went thru their click wrap license which told me to be quit.
"Sorry if I sound a bit over the top here... I just think the MS paranoia goes a little far sometimes."
"By the way, I wonder why they included via a modem in there. It seems like an unnecessary limitation."
Heh.. so anyone on cable or adsl (or better) is not affected by this patent.. hrmm.. maybe someone can patent one for static connections.. point out that "theirs" only affects people on modems..
Q: would it be simple enough to hax0r the client to no longer show the ads, but still 'report' that it did.. whoops;) coughalladvantagecough
Then again, my cable isn't always up.. I'm always getting discon
We have standards... what we need are people willing to follow them;).
When I design a webpage, I create the basic layout, add the content, and then add kewl little glyphs that give it that oooh and ahhh appeal. I personally think its important to follow the standards until the point where the browsers make their own standards (as long as they don't mess it up for another browser, its fair game to me).
Re:Need small, cheap, *quiet* computing! (Webpads?
on
Linux In A Box
·
· Score: 1
You know those isolinear chips from Star Trek TNG? Yeah! Have a main system that can take hundreds or thousands of smaller modules. A module could be a processor or hard-drive, service provider, whatever.
Need more space? plug in a harddrive module.
Need more processing? plug in a processor module.
The idea would be that everything is hot-swappable and come to life as soon as you've plugged it in.
(note that the modules don't have to be the size of the isolinear chips... its the idea tho).
You know what the biggest problem would be? Nine months after you've setup this system in your company, someone will create a new protocol and make the one you're using obsolete.. sigh.
eg;
----
Thank you for using the message storage system at MYEMAIL@MYISP.COM. We have received your message entitled "Fr33 P0Rn0 S173Z" #139 from LOZER@SPAM.COM. This is your receipt for services rendered in the storage of your 100Kb message.
# Description QTY UC SubTotal
-------------------------------------------
1 Storage of UCE 10Kb* $1.00 $1.00
1 Processing Fee na $5.00 $5.00
Subtotal: $6.00
Tax:...
Total:...
* for processing purposes, there is a minimum of 10Kb/message, billed at $1.00 per 10k.
Please remit payment by cash, cheque, or paypal. You already have my address, so I won't bother telling you again.
If you would like to cancel your subscription, please e-mail ME@MYISP.COM?Subject=OPTOUT and your messages will be expunged from our system. Please note that if you are remiss in your payments, we reserve the right to delete your messages and charge you a $100 late payment fee.
---
Can't / Don't = Should not
Illegal = please don't do that
They should save themselves some money and make all lawsuits against spam companies class-action. That way it is easier for 'joe schmoe' to actually win in court against mega-million-dollar company. It would also save the court system from billions of dollars in wated court time.
You'll get Aunt Mary suing little Billy because he sent her an e-mail she didn't want. You'll get Uncle Joe suing Timmy for sending him that MLM scam with the $5 thing, you know.. make cash by sen... yeah you got it.
Not all spam comes from companies looking to advertise stuff. Some spam comes from individuals looking to sell something or to just annoy people. Recently someone used a mailing list from a college I attend to advertise their music related website ("you'll enjoy these MP3's"). Unfortunatly for him, the content of the site is illegal (heh, no RIAA or DMCA debates for now please) and he harvisted mail from somewhere he really shouldn't have. I guess it's the school's fault for not bcc:'ing when they have large numbers of people to reach. I'm just pissed that someone spammed my school e-mail.. sigh.. thats what my @home e-mail is for.
Look at the bottom of spam and you'll notice a new trend.. yup.. they'll say something along the lines of "this is not unsolicited, this e-mail was entered at our website.. blah.. blah.. blah". Does this let them get away scot-free? And is scot-free spelt scot-free or scott free? and who is scott in this case? is he scottish? erm... back on topic. Is it valid to claim that the person requested it (or that *someone* put your e-mail into the box at their webpage) therefore avoiding all spam laws altogether? eep!
I'm afraid that if I "opt-out" all I will do is tell the company that I exist and that this is a valid e-mail. Yeah, they are supposed to delete my 411, but whats to stop them from copying it to another db of people who opt-out and then selling that. And don't tell me that they don't keep records of who opts out.
There should be a central, government or open, area where ALL UCE must pass through. That way you can opt-out of EVERYTHING in one go and not be bothered with the rest. Conversly, if I am interested in UCE (heh... its possible I guess) I can sign-up in once place for the things that interest me. Anyway, it could be illegal to send UCE from any e-mail outside this special domain.
Besides, how do these laws affect buisness outside states with them and, more importantly, in other countries without similar laws?
"MS has been getting some really bad publicity, and the people are starting to get angry at them [...] I have a feeling that there will be a huge backlash on MS."
Dude.. where have you been for the past 10 years?
;)
"If they were smart they would concentrate on keeping the market share that they have instead of trying to scam a buck off of their users. "
The other "big brother" (a/k/a the government) has told them not to increase their 99.999% marketshare.. so now they have to find new ways of scamming customers;).
"If they want to shoot themselves in the foot they are more that welcome to in my book. "
So, lets say a "small" buisness wants to get 100 computers for their whatever..
They can:
1) look for an OEM that will sell a nekkid computer. (hahahaha.. good luck)
2) after buying the PCs, ghost the first one and use that as your base image. I did that all the time at my former job. We meticously kept every OEM license manual and card. Then we set up one computer exactly as we wanted it, ghosted it, and then used that ghost image to image the other computers.. no second license, no bullshit.
People need to think before they buy two of something they don't even need one of;)
"The last time I checked, having both the low cost ticket and the high-price ticket would still get two people on that plane! "
Yes it will, but one guy will sit up front and the other will slug it out in the back.
As I get it, the first class 'select' lisence is an unlimited site license and your original lisence is a SINGLE PC license.. get it? You can still USE that OEM bundle, but it's a moot issue if you turn around and buy an unlimited license.
Basically your OEM machine comes with a copy of windows for it.. each of your machines does... but you can't copy them onto other machines (1 license = 1 copy). The 'select' thing lets you copy it around like no-bodies buisness (provided it stays within your buisness).
OEM - 1 copy for 1 PC
SELECT - 1 license for your site
I know I may lose karma or whatever for being the devils advocate here, but I never really cared much about karma anyhow.. (I've got like.. umm.. 17 last I checked).
anyway, the article and everyone else here seems to forget that Microsoft is not actually billing customers twice. Yes, in a derived way they are, but at the same time they are not. Huh? Well, Microsoft SELLS licences to OEMs so that they can sell computers with windows (they happen to have had issues with not licencing to those who wouldn't comply, but thats another story). Microsoft also sells product directly to consumers (buisnesses looking for an OS, whatever).
Should they NOT charge for this 'select' thing? Uh.. oh yeah.. you have a legitamite copy, so lets send you a new copy free with a different version. We may not like it, but it is _fair_ buisness practice to ask money for product. Microsoft is licencing them a 'select' version for a site license purpose. If they already BOUGHT a license from an OEM vendor, thats their own stupidity (or ignorance, or whatever).
If you don't want to pay twice, you don't _have_ to. And here's why;
if you buy 2,000 PCs and all come pre-loaded with 2000, office, IIS, and the rest of the gang, you could legitamitly make your own image and install them all with that CD... its done ALL the time... You have 20,000 licenses and 20,000 computers.. humm.. the math works.
Some moron went out and decided that they would rather buy a site-license from Microsoft without realizing that they already had enough licenses for all their PC's. Duh. Me stupid buisness man. Me no understand fucking english. Me buy another copy of what we already have. You think Microsoft WON'T jump the gun and sell something to someone who wants to buy? DUH.
Think before you license, and for gods sake RTFL(or in terms of Windows, RTFEULA)!
"First it was not shipping manuals with software (hey, you pay $1000, how dare you expect a printed manual?)"
How true, how true... I have a copy of MSVC++ (one of the last ones to come on 24 floppies) and the box weighs in at a nice 30lbs.. Now THATS documentation for ya!;). Nowadays you're lucky if you get a page telling you whats wrong with the software (that nice yellow 'eratta' sheet).
Question; if we printed up all the _worthwhile_ documentation for Linux, FreeBSD, whatever, and compared it to the _worthwhile_ documentaion for all of Microsofts stuff, which one would weigh more? We should start with the Microsoft documentation because if we do the HOWTO stuff, we might run out of paper;).
I'm sick of the word e-tailing... let the next person to mention e-tailing be shot.. uh... no.. the NEXT person.. not me... no.. arguh!
Just post a link to carnivore and I'm sure that the slashdot community will happily bring it to its knees. Either that or someone will hack it.. either way.. nuttin to worry about;).
You reminded me of something I was doing this past December.. I was giving intermediate technical support to someone (meaning I was doing all the work), upgrading their system from PC-DOS 3.2 to Windows NT4 (ugh) because they were concerned about Y2K issues. They were mainly concerned because their vendor told them to be concerned (!).
Anyhow, they already bought the new hardware and such (brand new) and wanted to use the old internal tape drive on the new machine. Now, remember that this is a 10 year old tape drive to get working on a brand new machine... no drivers... no support... no help... I got it working (whoho!) by hacking simelar drivers to reconize the drive, even though they weren't supposed to (a little late night hex editing if you catch my drift).
Anyhow, the only thing that DIDN'T work was their management system (a piece of old crappy cobol code... not that theres anything wrong with cobol, its just this was ms-cobol and was all compiled sans source code). Of course, all of his records for the past 10 years were in this and you think I could get ANY info on the specs? Haw.
So I call their technical support in Vancover (I'm out here in Ontario) and guess what...
TECH: Whats the problem?
ME: Its giving me error code #03-02-somefile.ext-29-3294.2093 (yeah.. nice error code there).
TECH: Oh? That error never happens.
ME: Well it's happening... what does it mean?
TECH: It means that somefile.ext doesn't exist. But that file isn't needed by the system anyway.
ME: So?
TECH: Uhh..
ME: How can I fix it.
TECH: Click on the dial manager icon and I'll log in to fix it.
Okay, he's being nice about it. Calling in long distance right across the country to look at it himself. They spend nearly 12 hours straight working on it.
Next day...
ME: So did you find the problem?
TECH: Well, we downloaded the whole system and got it working here.
ME: Great! So can you upload it to this system and have it working?
TECH: We tried that, but it doesn't work on the system.. must be a hardware problem.
ME: But they bought the EXACT system that you asked them to and had it checked out by a fully qualified technicain several times (yeah, so I'm a measly PFY with lots of technology certifications).
TECH: Oh.. Maybe it's Windows.
ME: You think?;-)
We went through fixing several files and what not.. no success.. they went back to using the old computer. Eventually they sent the HD over, the tech fixed it and sent it back. Happy ending.
Know that in this persons other office (he has two nearly identical offices in 2 seperate locations) I had done a flawless upgrade of his other system (everything is identical except for the records in the system). Nothing wrong there.
Oh well. c'est le vie I suppose.
Sometimes techsupport means you talk to a programmer or someone who has indepth knowleadge of the program and it's quirks. More often than not you get stuck with some secretary with a rolodex of possible issues and possible ways of fixing them. If the solution isn't there it depends on the company policy of handling exceptional errors... and we all know how Microsoft deals with exceptional errors (BSOD).
It comes to a point where you have to say, thats just really REALLY silly.. I mean, who's putting these stories through?
It's like saying FORD is responsable for car wrecks, or Delta is responsable for plane crashes (well.. okay.. maybe Delta is, but not Ford... so lay off).
Yeah, Intel makes chips.. code that runs on these chips is potentially exploitable? this articles solution is to make the chip more complicated instead of working towards better software.
It seems to me that if you consolidate code into libraries (as is the latest fashion statement) and stop re-inventing the wheel, then you can focus on actually FIXING the problems and plugging the holes.
Now some of the shi..err..stuff in there does make sense... like having a memory flag that says 'don't write here', but I get confused over how that gets controlled... if you have memory that is tagged with 'don't write' then how do you re-allocate the memory once the program is done? If the OS can turn off that flag, chances are some hacker is gonna figure out how to as well... they'll write some nifty exploit and the scr1pt kiddies will run with it... we'll be right back with the same problem.. software..
On one Web site, more than 60,000 people had signed an electronic petition vowing not to buy music unless the Recording Industry Association of America dropped its lawsuit against Napster. That would cost the industry nearly $1 million if each of those people refused to buy just one $15 CD.
Now, I've never actually bought a CD or cassette (either gifts or not at all) and I listen to mostly the free stuff on MP3.com..
The way they put it makes it sound like having a CD (or whatever medium is popular for music) is a neccessity and that the RIAA is our nipple at which we suckle. I dont think so.
You don't _need_ a CD... you _want_ the music. But if you don't care for the distributor of the information; DONT BUY IT. geez. simple concept eh? I know you guys need your backstreet boys or whatever, but come on...
Every day the RIAA loses $15 because every day I refuse to buy a CD... wtf?
Thats like saying the software industry looses $x every day because you use software without paying a continuing roality (oops.. don't wanna give Microsoft any ideas here... but they may be doing THIS anyway, so...)
Its also like saying Slashdot is losing posts every day because some people don't visit here. hrmm.. if they don't visit..
Microsoft is guilty of this.. look at Windows 95 and NT for gods sake.. People would have gone with OS/2 if they had known Chicago would have been delayed so long.. Thanks to the news goats and the PR monkies OS/2 died thanks to Microsoft FUD.
The biggest group out there doing this is the game companies. They announce a project and won't give a release date under the guise of "creating a perfect game". But they still want the advertising. Diablo 2, Dakant-spell-it-yet-kana, Max Payne, and more... Its hype.. it's the PR department not talking to the programmers, its FUD, its wrong.
AFAIK the output and contents of a webpage, no matter how they are generated, are copyright to the creator of that page. I think that the person who owns the rights over the scripts/programs that generated a page, owns the rights to the information it generates. If you wanted to open-source the webpage output, you could explicitly say something like "the information on this site is open to anyone for any use (copyleft)" and if you wanted to retain full rights, say "Copyright so-and-so... blah blah blah"..
That is, under copyleft, anyone could use the information as long as they don't modify it. Under copyright they would have to obtain your permission (usually a licence fee) to use or distribute it.
If a program generates a map of an area, then the resulting map would be the copyrighted work of the owner of the script - I built a script that could create this work. If the script was open source then anyone should be freely able to use the generated data. If it is closed then you must obtain permission first (which could allow the copyright owner to release their 'right' and allow free-use).
I can just see how pissed off this will make those other companies. One _console_ platform that can run anything and everything that the competitors put out there. If such a beast did exist, it would be almost a no-brainer which one to get.
I mean.. get a PSX to play PSX games, a N64 to play N64 games, etc... but wouldn't a single box that playes PSX, N64 and all the rest on ONE platform RUIN competition? The other companies would have easy grounds for unfair competition (Microsoft has the resources and the clout to pull something like this off).
As I see it, PC empulators for the PSX and whatnot don't harm the console industry for many reasons. Mainly, the 'desktop' is generally more complicated to use than the console and is also not generally hooked up to the television (giving that the average person has a 14"-18" monitor and a 27" TV).
A console is easy to use. The computer is not as easy. But there are PC users who want to play console games and not fork over more cash for an extra console. THAT is the market for emulators. If you get one console running EVERYTHING, you can be sure that those other boxes will go out of buisness and their games will also go away.
I am assuming in this rant that the X-Box is powerful enough to emulate the games smoothly. It wouldn't matter if the X-Box is a pile of junk.. which it more than likely will be;P. But thats just my opinion.
I'd like to read some nice conspiracies of how Rambus is controlling Intel and how Aliens from [insert name of distant planet] are controlling the whole thing from above.
Yeah, it makes sense that the i815 is newer and based on the i810.. still, they could have called it the i-gothitovertheheadwithacluebat chipset and they might have gotten it a bit closer to the truth;).
Just like they changed the processor serial number (PSN) to be the WPSNYTB? (What PSN are You Talkin' aBout?)
What I meant was that every technology has its place... or so I believe... anyway, I stopped being suprised by how far tech could be streached since the 486 (I had one for 10 years before upgrading... then again, I still have my good old' c64).
You're right tho... RDRAM seems to be a lost cause.. maybe if Intel tweaks their chips, RDRAM will get a better shot... then again we might ALL start using Athalons;P.
I feel bad for Intel for getting tied up in such a silly technology.
Wait for a second and flip the numbers over for a sec... lets assume for a moment that the RDRAM was 3% faster than the SDRAM... is that 3% worth the expense?
Now lets come back to reality. According to the benchmarks I've seen SDRAM comes out close to and usually beats RDRAM at a much lower cost. I wouldn't be suprised if some tech-head came and showed me RDRAM spanking the benchmarks for big server apps, but why do I care?
I would like to see a benchmark comparing Linux with SDRAM against Windows with RDRAM. Of course we'll have to get mindcraft to do the tests.. as they have experience in this area..
In the end, it depends on your perspective... Do you spend extra cash on the memory on the processor or the memory? I'd live to see someone put 600MHz RDRAM on a 500MHz processor...
OTOH, SDRAM has been around for a bit longer than RDRAM (it's also an..."open standard"...). Do you want to pile your cash into a STILL umproven technology that could easily be squashed in a few months?
I've been worried recently that SDRAM prices will skyrocket and RDRAM prices will plummit for the ONLY reason of big buisness pushing around the little consumer.
Slashdot Mirror
Haven't you learned yet that Microsoft can do whatever it wants to, even breaking the fundamental laws of computer science?
I remember from the C# reference that 'swap' routine that if it produced the desired output would be a miracle. But I can't talk about that because I went thru their click wrap license which told me to be quit.
"Sorry if I sound a bit over the top here... I just think the MS paranoia goes a little far sometimes."
Its never enough for some people.
=00s Government = Big Brother? (possible?) heh.
die IE die die die.
"By the way, I wonder why they included via a modem in there. It seems like an unnecessary limitation."
;) coughalladvantagecough
Heh.. so anyone on cable or adsl (or better) is not affected by this patent.. hrmm.. maybe someone can patent one for static connections.. point out that "theirs" only affects people on modems..
Q: would it be simple enough to hax0r the client to no longer show the ads, but still 'report' that it did.. whoops
Then again, my cable isn't always up.. I'm always getting discon
"Standards would be a nice idea"
;).
We have standards... what we need are people willing to follow them
When I design a webpage, I create the basic layout, add the content, and then add kewl little glyphs that give it that oooh and ahhh appeal. I personally think its important to follow the standards until the point where the browsers make their own standards (as long as they don't mess it up for another browser, its fair game to me).
You know those isolinear chips from Star Trek TNG? Yeah! Have a main system that can take hundreds or thousands of smaller modules. A module could be a processor or hard-drive, service provider, whatever.
Need more space? plug in a harddrive module.
Need more processing? plug in a processor module.
The idea would be that everything is hot-swappable and come to life as soon as you've plugged it in.
(note that the modules don't have to be the size of the isolinear chips... its the idea tho).
You know what the biggest problem would be? Nine months after you've setup this system in your company, someone will create a new protocol and make the one you're using obsolete.. sigh.
;-)
Is there a "Life in a box"?
;).
Because a LOT of people here (including me) need one
Simple... let them opt out ;)
...
...
;-0
eg;
----
Thank you for using the message storage system at MYEMAIL@MYISP.COM. We have received your message entitled "Fr33 P0Rn0 S173Z" #139 from LOZER@SPAM.COM. This is your receipt for services rendered in the storage of your 100Kb message.
# Description QTY UC SubTotal
-------------------------------------------
1 Storage of UCE 10Kb* $1.00 $1.00
1 Processing Fee na $5.00 $5.00
Subtotal: $6.00
Tax:
Total:
* for processing purposes, there is a minimum of 10Kb/message, billed at $1.00 per 10k.
Please remit payment by cash, cheque, or paypal. You already have my address, so I won't bother telling you again.
If you would like to cancel your subscription, please e-mail ME@MYISP.COM?Subject=OPTOUT and your messages will be expunged from our system. Please note that if you are remiss in your payments, we reserve the right to delete your messages and charge you a $100 late payment fee.
---
See.. that could work
have fun, and don't get arrested.
Can't / Don't = Should not
Illegal = please don't do that
They should save themselves some money and make all lawsuits against spam companies class-action. That way it is easier for 'joe schmoe' to actually win in court against mega-million-dollar company. It would also save the court system from billions of dollars in wated court time.
You'll get Aunt Mary suing little Billy because he sent her an e-mail she didn't want. You'll get Uncle Joe suing Timmy for sending him that MLM scam with the $5 thing, you know.. make cash by sen... yeah you got it.
Not all spam comes from companies looking to advertise stuff. Some spam comes from individuals looking to sell something or to just annoy people. Recently someone used a mailing list from a college I attend to advertise their music related website ("you'll enjoy these MP3's"). Unfortunatly for him, the content of the site is illegal (heh, no RIAA or DMCA debates for now please) and he harvisted mail from somewhere he really shouldn't have. I guess it's the school's fault for not bcc:'ing when they have large numbers of people to reach. I'm just pissed that someone spammed my school e-mail.. sigh.. thats what my @home e-mail is for.
Look at the bottom of spam and you'll notice a new trend.. yup.. they'll say something along the lines of "this is not unsolicited, this e-mail was entered at our website.. blah.. blah.. blah". Does this let them get away scot-free? And is scot-free spelt scot-free or scott free? and who is scott in this case? is he scottish? erm... back on topic. Is it valid to claim that the person requested it (or that *someone* put your e-mail into the box at their webpage) therefore avoiding all spam laws altogether? eep!
Heh.. have fun, and remember... this ain't spam!
I'm afraid that if I "opt-out" all I will do is tell the company that I exist and that this is a valid e-mail. Yeah, they are supposed to delete my 411, but whats to stop them from copying it to another db of people who opt-out and then selling that. And don't tell me that they don't keep records of who opts out.
;-)
There should be a central, government or open, area where ALL UCE must pass through. That way you can opt-out of EVERYTHING in one go and not be bothered with the rest. Conversly, if I am interested in UCE (heh... its possible I guess) I can sign-up in once place for the things that interest me. Anyway, it could be illegal to send UCE from any e-mail outside this special domain.
Besides, how do these laws affect buisness outside states with them and, more importantly, in other countries without similar laws?
bah.
"MS has been getting some really bad publicity, and the people are starting to get angry at them [...] I have a feeling that there will be a huge backlash on MS."
;).
Dude.. where have you been for the past 10 years?
;)
"If they were smart they would concentrate on keeping the market share that they have instead of trying to scam a buck off of their users. "
The other "big brother" (a/k/a the government) has told them not to increase their 99.999% marketshare.. so now they have to find new ways of scamming customers
"If they want to shoot themselves in the foot they are more that welcome to in my book. "
They already have quite the holy foot.
Sure, I won't debate that. But the OEM is licensing you the first copy, not big bro^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMicrosoft.. Take it up with them.
:)
IIRC, you *can* sell your license if you include everything you got with it and all the upgrades... does that include the PC?
So, lets say a "small" buisness wants to get 100 computers for their whatever..
;)
They can:
1) look for an OEM that will sell a nekkid computer. (hahahaha.. good luck)
2) after buying the PCs, ghost the first one and use that as your base image. I did that all the time at my former job. We meticously kept every OEM license manual and card. Then we set up one computer exactly as we wanted it, ghosted it, and then used that ghost image to image the other computers.. no second license, no bullshit.
People need to think before they buy two of something they don't even need one of
"The last time I checked, having both the low cost ticket and the high-price ticket would still get two people on that plane! "
Yes it will, but one guy will sit up front and the other will slug it out in the back.
As I get it, the first class 'select' lisence is an unlimited site license and your original lisence is a SINGLE PC license.. get it? You can still USE that OEM bundle, but it's a moot issue if you turn around and buy an unlimited license.
Basically your OEM machine comes with a copy of windows for it.. each of your machines does... but you can't copy them onto other machines (1 license = 1 copy). The 'select' thing lets you copy it around like no-bodies buisness (provided it stays within your buisness).
OEM - 1 copy for 1 PC
SELECT - 1 license for your site
see the difference?
Some people need help.. others just need Linux.
I realize that 20,000 != 2,000, so don't spot me on a simple typo :)
I know I may lose karma or whatever for being the devils advocate here, but I never really cared much about karma anyhow.. (I've got like.. umm.. 17 last I checked).
anyway, the article and everyone else here seems to forget that Microsoft is not actually billing customers twice. Yes, in a derived way they are, but at the same time they are not. Huh? Well, Microsoft SELLS licences to OEMs so that they can sell computers with windows (they happen to have had issues with not licencing to those who wouldn't comply, but thats another story). Microsoft also sells product directly to consumers (buisnesses looking for an OS, whatever).
Should they NOT charge for this 'select' thing? Uh.. oh yeah.. you have a legitamite copy, so lets send you a new copy free with a different version. We may not like it, but it is _fair_ buisness practice to ask money for product. Microsoft is licencing them a 'select' version for a site license purpose. If they already BOUGHT a license from an OEM vendor, thats their own stupidity (or ignorance, or whatever).
If you don't want to pay twice, you don't _have_ to. And here's why;
if you buy 2,000 PCs and all come pre-loaded with 2000, office, IIS, and the rest of the gang, you could legitamitly make your own image and install them all with that CD... its done ALL the time... You have 20,000 licenses and 20,000 computers.. humm.. the math works.
Some moron went out and decided that they would rather buy a site-license from Microsoft without realizing that they already had enough licenses for all their PC's. Duh. Me stupid buisness man. Me no understand fucking english. Me buy another copy of what we already have. You think Microsoft WON'T jump the gun and sell something to someone who wants to buy? DUH.
Think before you license, and for gods sake RTFL(or in terms of Windows, RTFEULA)!
--
"First it was not shipping manuals with software (hey, you pay $1000, how dare you expect a printed manual?)"
;). Nowadays you're lucky if you get a page telling you whats wrong with the software (that nice yellow 'eratta' sheet).
;).
How true, how true... I have a copy of MSVC++ (one of the last ones to come on 24 floppies) and the box weighs in at a nice 30lbs.. Now THATS documentation for ya!
Question; if we printed up all the _worthwhile_ documentation for Linux, FreeBSD, whatever, and compared it to the _worthwhile_ documentaion for all of Microsofts stuff, which one would weigh more? We should start with the Microsoft documentation because if we do the HOWTO stuff, we might run out of paper
I'm sick of the word e-tailing... let the next person to mention e-tailing be shot.. uh... no.. the NEXT person.. not me... no.. arguh!
Just post a link to carnivore and I'm sure that the slashdot community will happily bring it to its knees. Either that or someone will hack it.. either way.. nuttin to worry about ;).
You reminded me of something I was doing this past December.. I was giving intermediate technical support to someone (meaning I was doing all the work), upgrading their system from PC-DOS 3.2 to Windows NT4 (ugh) because they were concerned about Y2K issues. They were mainly concerned because their vendor told them to be concerned (!).
;-)
Anyhow, they already bought the new hardware and such (brand new) and wanted to use the old internal tape drive on the new machine. Now, remember that this is a 10 year old tape drive to get working on a brand new machine... no drivers... no support... no help... I got it working (whoho!) by hacking simelar drivers to reconize the drive, even though they weren't supposed to (a little late night hex editing if you catch my drift).
Anyhow, the only thing that DIDN'T work was their management system (a piece of old crappy cobol code... not that theres anything wrong with cobol, its just this was ms-cobol and was all compiled sans source code). Of course, all of his records for the past 10 years were in this and you think I could get ANY info on the specs? Haw.
So I call their technical support in Vancover (I'm out here in Ontario) and guess what...
TECH: Whats the problem?
ME: Its giving me error code #03-02-somefile.ext-29-3294.2093 (yeah.. nice error code there).
TECH: Oh? That error never happens.
ME: Well it's happening... what does it mean?
TECH: It means that somefile.ext doesn't exist. But that file isn't needed by the system anyway.
ME: So?
TECH: Uhh..
ME: How can I fix it.
TECH: Click on the dial manager icon and I'll log in to fix it.
Okay, he's being nice about it. Calling in long distance right across the country to look at it himself. They spend nearly 12 hours straight working on it.
Next day...
ME: So did you find the problem?
TECH: Well, we downloaded the whole system and got it working here.
ME: Great! So can you upload it to this system and have it working?
TECH: We tried that, but it doesn't work on the system.. must be a hardware problem.
ME: But they bought the EXACT system that you asked them to and had it checked out by a fully qualified technicain several times (yeah, so I'm a measly PFY with lots of technology certifications).
TECH: Oh.. Maybe it's Windows.
ME: You think?
We went through fixing several files and what not.. no success.. they went back to using the old computer. Eventually they sent the HD over, the tech fixed it and sent it back. Happy ending.
Know that in this persons other office (he has two nearly identical offices in 2 seperate locations) I had done a flawless upgrade of his other system (everything is identical except for the records in the system). Nothing wrong there.
Oh well. c'est le vie I suppose.
Sometimes techsupport means you talk to a programmer or someone who has indepth knowleadge of the program and it's quirks. More often than not you get stuck with some secretary with a rolodex of possible issues and possible ways of fixing them. If the solution isn't there it depends on the company policy of handling exceptional errors... and we all know how Microsoft deals with exceptional errors (BSOD).
;P
It comes to a point where you have to say, thats just really REALLY silly.. I mean, who's putting these stories through?
It's like saying FORD is responsable for car wrecks, or Delta is responsable for plane crashes (well.. okay.. maybe Delta is, but not Ford... so lay off).
Yeah, Intel makes chips.. code that runs on these chips is potentially exploitable? this articles solution is to make the chip more complicated instead of working towards better software.
It seems to me that if you consolidate code into libraries (as is the latest fashion statement) and stop re-inventing the wheel, then you can focus on actually FIXING the problems and plugging the holes.
Now some of the shi..err..stuff in there does make sense... like having a memory flag that says 'don't write here', but I get confused over how that gets controlled... if you have memory that is tagged with 'don't write' then how do you re-allocate the memory once the program is done? If the OS can turn off that flag, chances are some hacker is gonna figure out how to as well... they'll write some nifty exploit and the scr1pt kiddies will run with it... we'll be right back with the same problem.. software..
oh well.
Now, I've never actually bought a CD or cassette (either gifts or not at all) and I listen to mostly the free stuff on MP3.com..
The way they put it makes it sound like having a CD (or whatever medium is popular for music) is a neccessity and that the RIAA is our nipple at which we suckle. I dont think so.
You don't _need_ a CD... you _want_ the music. But if you don't care for the distributor of the information; DONT BUY IT. geez. simple concept eh? I know you guys need your backstreet boys or whatever, but come on...
Every day the RIAA loses $15 because every day I refuse to buy a CD... wtf?
Thats like saying the software industry looses $x every day because you use software without paying a continuing roality (oops.. don't wanna give Microsoft any ideas here... but they may be doing THIS anyway, so...)
Its also like saying Slashdot is losing posts every day because some people don't visit here. hrmm.. if they don't visit..
ack.. get stuffed...
Actually its FUD, vapourware, etc.
Microsoft is guilty of this.. look at Windows 95 and NT for gods sake.. People would have gone with OS/2 if they had known Chicago would have been delayed so long.. Thanks to the news goats and the PR monkies OS/2 died thanks to Microsoft FUD.
The biggest group out there doing this is the game companies. They announce a project and won't give a release date under the guise of "creating a perfect game". But they still want the advertising. Diablo 2, Dakant-spell-it-yet-kana, Max Payne, and more... Its hype.. it's the PR department not talking to the programmers, its FUD, its wrong.
Bah.. wtfc.
AFAIK the output and contents of a webpage, no matter how they are generated, are copyright to the creator of that page. I think that the person who owns the rights over the scripts/programs that generated a page, owns the rights to the information it generates. If you wanted to open-source the webpage output, you could explicitly say something like "the information on this site is open to anyone for any use (copyleft)" and if you wanted to retain full rights, say "Copyright so-and-so... blah blah blah"..
That is, under copyleft, anyone could use the information as long as they don't modify it. Under copyright they would have to obtain your permission (usually a licence fee) to use or distribute it.
If a program generates a map of an area, then the resulting map would be the copyrighted work of the owner of the script - I built a script that could create this work. If the script was open source then anyone should be freely able to use the generated data. If it is closed then you must obtain permission first (which could allow the copyright owner to release their 'right' and allow free-use).
But thats just my opinion.
I can just see how pissed off this will make those other companies. One _console_ platform that can run anything and everything that the competitors put out there. If such a beast did exist, it would be almost a no-brainer which one to get.
;P. But thats just my opinion.
I mean.. get a PSX to play PSX games, a N64 to play N64 games, etc... but wouldn't a single box that playes PSX, N64 and all the rest on ONE platform RUIN competition? The other companies would have easy grounds for unfair competition (Microsoft has the resources and the clout to pull something like this off).
As I see it, PC empulators for the PSX and whatnot don't harm the console industry for many reasons. Mainly, the 'desktop' is generally more complicated to use than the console and is also not generally hooked up to the television (giving that the average person has a 14"-18" monitor and a 27" TV).
A console is easy to use. The computer is not as easy. But there are PC users who want to play console games and not fork over more cash for an extra console. THAT is the market for emulators. If you get one console running EVERYTHING, you can be sure that those other boxes will go out of buisness and their games will also go away.
I am assuming in this rant that the X-Box is powerful enough to emulate the games smoothly. It wouldn't matter if the X-Box is a pile of junk.. which it more than likely will be
;).
;).
I'd like to read some nice conspiracies of how Rambus is controlling Intel and how Aliens from [insert name of distant planet] are controlling the whole thing from above.
Yeah, it makes sense that the i815 is newer and based on the i810.. still, they could have called it the i-gothitovertheheadwithacluebat chipset and they might have gotten it a bit closer to the truth
Just like they changed the processor serial number (PSN) to be the WPSNYTB? (What PSN are You Talkin' aBout?)
;)
What I meant was that every technology has its place... or so I believe... anyway, I stopped being suprised by how far tech could be streached since the 486 (I had one for 10 years before upgrading... then again, I still have my good old' c64).
;P.
You're right tho... RDRAM seems to be a lost cause.. maybe if Intel tweaks their chips, RDRAM will get a better shot... then again we might ALL start using Athalons
I feel bad for Intel for getting tied up in such a silly technology.
Wait for a second and flip the numbers over for a sec... lets assume for a moment that the RDRAM was 3% faster than the SDRAM... is that 3% worth the expense?
Now lets come back to reality. According to the benchmarks I've seen SDRAM comes out close to and usually beats RDRAM at a much lower cost. I wouldn't be suprised if some tech-head came and showed me RDRAM spanking the benchmarks for big server apps, but why do I care?
I would like to see a benchmark comparing Linux with SDRAM against Windows with RDRAM. Of course we'll have to get mindcraft to do the tests.. as they have experience in this area..
In the end, it depends on your perspective... Do you spend extra cash on the memory on the processor or the memory? I'd live to see someone put 600MHz RDRAM on a 500MHz processor...
OTOH, SDRAM has been around for a bit longer than RDRAM (it's also an..."open standard"...). Do you want to pile your cash into a STILL umproven technology that could easily be squashed in a few months?
I've been worried recently that SDRAM prices will skyrocket and RDRAM prices will plummit for the ONLY reason of big buisness pushing around the little consumer.
Fuck it.