For this reason, our legislators tend to pay far more attention to writen letters sent by snail mail,...
I sent letters to both my senators, registered mail, about two weeks ago. I have yet to get the receipt back. I have no confidence in sending snail mail.
Now I have to go snuffle up a fax machine someplace...
What MS has to say about it is printed in the EULA
No. The EULA is in the EULA. The article offers a particular interpretation/paraphrasing of the EULA. The author should have contacted Microsoft to see if this view of the EULA was correct, and if it was what Microsoft intended.
According to this article in Infoworld, the XP license prohibits products other than from Microsoft's from being used to remotely control an XP workstation.
But what does Microsoft have to say about it? Nowhere does the article mention anything about trying to contact Microsoft for a statement on the matter. I guess that would violate the rules of good Infoworld journalism.
What kind of BS is that - how is it more less 'easy' to get into Canada vs. anywhere else?
What kind of BS is that? I never said it was less easy to get into Canada. It's easy to get into the USA. Illegal immigrants abound. Sure, most aren't terrorist, but that wasn't my point. Despite all the rhetoric, security is still half-assed.
And don't tell me that "software flaws don't kill people."
OK, I won't. What I *will* tell you is that getting a computer virus that formats your hard drive is a far cry from someone dying. For those extreme cases, there already exists legal resources.
For the less dramatic cases, I would ask you if your store-bought software failed to live up to the claims of the manufacter. If so, then you can sue the company.
If you choose to buy a product where the mafacturer makes no claims for the product, and doesn't guarantee its safety, then that's your business.
In the long run, consumer education will acomplish more than state intervention.
Re:Not as bad as all that
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 1
It was a glitch, and a funny one, but it wasn't even remotely exploitable.
Of course it's exploitable. That's the whole point. If a certain phrase links to some page, then searching for that phrase gives that page as a hit. This particular instance was a fluke; the folks at Hugh Disk weren't trying to sway Google's search results. But, once it happened, it exposed a way to do it, and that technique is what is now called Google Bombs.
Re:Not as bad as all that
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 1
It specifically says they did not use Google!
From the Wired article: 'When you type "dumb motherfucker" into Google, the search engine's top result is a site about President Bush. "
At first this was puzzling, until folks realized that google associated those words with Bush because the Hugh Disk article had that link. This is exactly what was done 6 months later with the "talentless hack" link that, for whatever reason, is now considered a clever and innovative ploy.
Anyway, AC buddy, if you're going to post misinformation, at least use a real account so we know who to point and laugh at.
Why don't we stop hating Microsoft for a second and realize that if Linux were the dominant platform then we would have scores of security holes being exploited in that system instead of Windows.
While the write-up for the article singles out MSFT, I find it hard to believe that any corporation (e.g. Sun, IBM, Oracle, the whole NOISE gang, actually) would want to be legally and finacially tied to software bugs. Framing this as a "let's screw Microsoft" deal misses the point.
Most businesses that contract software have an SLA (service-level agreement); if the software doesn't meet certian standards, the supplier must pay a penalty. For the most part, the more serious potential problems are handled privately, without the need for some sweeping government iron hand.
Missing a bit of history (Re:Corante article)
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I read the Corante article [corante.com] a while ago and it has some good info on Google Bombing (first use, effect, etc).
But it fails to mention the "dumb motherfucker" -> George Bush search hit perpetrated by the Hugh Disk site. It helped expose the potential flaw in Google's ranking algorithm.
I'm a bit surprised that when people picked up on this six months later it's considered clever and original.
Re:Not as bad as all that
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Over a year ago, Wired News ran a story about how searching on "dumb motherfucker' returned a George Bush site back as #1. This did not require massive coordination; it was one person with a page that linked the words to the Bush site.
Re:Please do not feed the hypocrites
on
Digital Biology
·
· Score: 2
Those who know the truth about the world's creation might be able to read this book safely.
Hey, guess what? God just spoke to me, and told me that evolution is real. Feel better?
I can't actually discuss the terms of my contract, but lets just say writing a tech book is good for your name, some money, and not much else.:)
What else do you want? I, too, am a technical writer. I write about programming languages. The information is constantly changing, so such books are "perishable goods." Both author and publisher need to make a few bucks while the books are still relevant. I made some decent money off one book, some side chapters, some on-line articles. I see each piece as stepping-stone to the next. My rates have gone up as I get more experience and more exposure. Do I excpect a lifetime of earnings from any single work? No. It's a job, and I'm fine with that.
If I can make a living as a writer, where I can set my own hours and live where I want, then I've achieved at least some of my goals. Text-for-hire is no worse than code-for-hire, but you don't hear quite the same commotion from programmers wanting lifetime royalties on their daily output of Java.
You tend to lose most or all of your rights to your work with a typical contract for a technical book.
In most cases it doesn't really matter. Today's technology is outdated fairly quick. If you're writing a book that's more abstract and has a pontentially longer shelf life, then one hopes you really know what you're talking about, have a decent reputation, and can negotiate a better contract.
There's a difference between suspected peeping toms and convicted rapists ( sorry -- I guess Micro$oft still on appeal for their conviction ).
Wow. Comparing Microsoft to a rapist. Let me guess: you're a guy, and you probably don't even *know* any women.
Am I right?
I *knew* it!
Here's a tip: If you want to make clever analogies, avoid glib references to crimes of sexual violence that destroy lives. Half the population will appreciate your effort.
Despite that everyone loves to appear smart by joking about this, it's good style to duplicate the last word of an acronym to provide context.
Why? That's the first time I've ever heard such a claim, and I'm wondering if you just made it up, and what the rational is.
Seems to me, if you're talking about getting money from an ATM, then you don't need the redundancy because the, er, *context* provides context. And if the initialism is unclear, then the proper thing is simply to say the words, not use the letters.
Also, consider that Windows could always run on an amazing variety of x86 hardware. Until fairly recently, other OS's were hyper-picky about what they worked with. Not the right mouse? Oh well. Not the right video card? Too bad.
What made Windows so popular is that the average user could go buy the hardware that suited them, not have to buy something that suited the OS. It meant that OEMs could construct off-the-shelf PCs for a wide range of needs. More choice made for happier consumers.
Slashdot Mirror
But hey, at least they support open standards, like Java(tm), J2EE(tm), JAXP(tm) ...
I sent letters to both my senators, registered mail, about two weeks ago. I have yet to get the receipt back. I have no confidence in sending snail mail.
Now I have to go snuffle up a fax machine someplace ...
No. The EULA is in the EULA. The article offers a particular interpretation/paraphrasing of the EULA. The author should have contacted Microsoft to see if this view of the EULA was correct, and if it was what Microsoft intended.
But what does Microsoft have to say about it? Nowhere does the article mention anything about trying to contact Microsoft for a statement on the matter. I guess that would violate the rules of good Infoworld journalism.
What kind of BS is that? I never said it was less easy to get into Canada. It's easy to get into the USA. Illegal immigrants abound. Sure, most aren't terrorist, but that wasn't my point. Despite all the rhetoric, security is still half-assed.
GOD I HATE STUPID WINDOWS USERS
Oh, self-loathing is so sad ...
That's pretty damn funny!
OK, I won't. What I *will* tell you is that getting a computer virus that formats your hard drive is a far cry from someone dying. For those extreme cases, there already exists legal resources.
For the less dramatic cases, I would ask you if your store-bought software failed to live up to the claims of the manufacter. If so, then you can sue the company.
If you choose to buy a product where the mafacturer makes no claims for the product, and doesn't guarantee its safety, then that's your business.
In the long run, consumer education will acomplish more than state intervention.
Of course it's exploitable. That's the whole point. If a certain phrase links to some page, then searching for that phrase gives that page as a hit. This particular instance was a fluke; the folks at Hugh Disk weren't trying to sway Google's search results. But, once it happened, it exposed a way to do it, and that technique is what is now called Google Bombs.
From the Wired article: 'When you type "dumb motherfucker" into Google, the search engine's top result is a site about President Bush. "
At first this was puzzling, until folks realized that google associated those words with Bush because the Hugh Disk article had that link. This is exactly what was done 6 months later with the "talentless hack" link that, for whatever reason, is now considered a clever and innovative ploy.
Anyway, AC buddy, if you're going to post misinformation, at least use a real account so we know who to point and laugh at.
While the write-up for the article singles out MSFT, I find it hard to believe that any corporation (e.g. Sun, IBM, Oracle, the whole NOISE gang, actually) would want to be legally and finacially tied to software bugs. Framing this as a "let's screw Microsoft" deal misses the point.
Most businesses that contract software have an SLA (service-level agreement); if the software doesn't meet certian standards, the supplier must pay a penalty. For the most part, the more serious potential problems are handled privately, without the need for some sweeping government iron hand.
But it fails to mention the "dumb motherfucker" -> George Bush search hit perpetrated by the Hugh Disk site. It helped expose the potential flaw in Google's ranking algorithm.
I'm a bit surprised that when people picked up on this six months later it's considered clever and original.
Hey, guess what? God just spoke to me, and told me that evolution is real. Feel better?
What else do you want? I, too, am a technical writer. I write about programming languages. The information is constantly changing, so such books are "perishable goods." Both author and publisher need to make a few bucks while the books are still relevant. I made some decent money off one book, some side chapters, some on-line articles. I see each piece as stepping-stone to the next. My rates have gone up as I get more experience and more exposure. Do I excpect a lifetime of earnings from any single work? No. It's a job, and I'm fine with that.
If I can make a living as a writer, where I can set my own hours and live where I want, then I've achieved at least some of my goals. Text-for-hire is no worse than code-for-hire, but you don't hear quite the same commotion from programmers wanting lifetime royalties on their daily output of Java.
You tend to lose most or all of your rights to your work with a typical contract for a technical book.
In most cases it doesn't really matter. Today's technology is outdated fairly quick. If you're writing a book that's more abstract and has a pontentially longer shelf life, then one hopes you really know what you're talking about, have a decent reputation, and can negotiate a better contract.
Wow. Comparing Microsoft to a rapist. Let me guess: you're a guy, and you probably don't even *know* any women.
Am I right?
I *knew* it!
Here's a tip: If you want to make clever analogies, avoid glib references to crimes of sexual violence that destroy lives. Half the population will appreciate your effort.
And maybe chicks will finally talk to you.
Instead we killed it off in less than a hundred years.
"We"? Speak for yourself.
Why? That's the first time I've ever heard such a claim, and I'm wondering if you just made it up, and what the rational is.
Seems to me, if you're talking about getting money from an ATM, then you don't need the redundancy because the, er, *context* provides context. And if the initialism is unclear, then the proper thing is simply to say the words, not use the letters.
You mean don't do what you just did?
Or change it to "Been"
It's ironic, too, that back in 1985 Gates told Jobs that he should license the Mac operating system.
No, the point of an elected government is so that one group of people can force their agreements on others, and then claim the moral highground.
Of course, others have now picked up on the idea.
Also, consider that Windows could always run on an amazing variety of x86 hardware. Until fairly recently, other OS's were hyper-picky about what they worked with. Not the right mouse? Oh well. Not the right video card? Too bad.
What made Windows so popular is that the average user could go buy the hardware that suited them, not have to buy something that suited the OS. It meant that OEMs could construct off-the-shelf PCs for a wide range of needs. More choice made for happier consumers.
You wouldn't want Slashdot to be exclusionary, would you? Then you'd just see the same opinion over and over.
Oh, wait ...