This is an frontal attack on the company and it's policies.
Assuming you are not trolling:
'Frontal attack'? This isn't a war. It's just capitalist business as usual.
Until a law is passed by the World Government requiring every electronic device sold everywhere to run a Microsoft OS, there will ALWAYS be consumer decision making.
It's FUD-spreading fanatics like you that ensure Linux will never enjoy broad acceptance beyond the geek subculture.
Well, try to buy Office 4.3 in a way that Microsoft or the BSA accept it.
There's about a dozen shrinkwrapped copies on eBay right now. BuyItNow prices under $10. There may or may not be license issues with these, but it's sure a lot closer to legal than leeching an ISO from Kazaa...
Or better yet, I guarantee that Microsoft offers support contracts that give access to all previous versions of all MS software products, EXPRESSLY for the purpose of testing.
You can send porn to a physical mailbox, and the person who gets the mail may be a minor, but you can't be held responsible for that minor seeing "inappropriate" material.
Maybe so, but I've never heard of anyone sending free porno mags out to random postal addresses.
The scenario you're describing assumes that someone at that address, minor or not, ordered the adult materials. We know with spam that it is RARELY the case that the recipient has knowingly and legitimately opted in... if they had, it wouldn't be spam, would it?
Your assumption is that the RIAA's accusations were groundless, therefore this lawsuit must be considered barratry.
Hold on, there.
With the kinds of bad intellectual property laws that are out there today (I'll mention DMCA here to be a karma whore), the issues are not nearly so cut and dried. Remember, the courts aren't a way to determine what SHOULD be against the law--they're to determine what IS against the law.
Maybe he did something illegal, maybe he didn't. Since he chose not to fight (and I don't blame him for that in the least), we'll never know.
Being that this is Wired we're talking about, the assembly code will probably be printed in magenta text on an orange background. No EVILE HAX0RS will be able to learn how to 0WNZ0R from it.
And then the score rolled to -32k. I've never hated Microsoft as much as I did that day (and I hate them a lot). I was dumbfound. They can't code AND they can't play Tetris. And they call themselves professionals...
And I'm sure YOU'VE never written code where you put 'int' where you should have put 'unsigned int' instead... c'mon, as far as coding errors go this one is trivial.
If an affected user has an old email from you sitting around from which to steal your name, they can steal your PGP public signature from the email too.
Virus writers aren't crafty enough to attempt this yet, but then again so few people use or even understand the purpose of PGP (or GPG or whatever) that it wouldn't be worth their time.
Which is exactly why so many worms target Apache rather than IIS.
But since IIS is *easier* to exploit, less investment is required for a given return.
ROI can't be measure simply based on how many machines get afflicted, but rather the number of machines per unit of effort expended creating and propagating the exploit.
It adds another point of failure (`Fuck! My clothes have crashed!')
And when that happens, they fall back to the system we have now. There's no risk increase in introducing smart uniforms.
(Except for the "built-in tourniquet" garbage -- what the hell? What's going to happen when one of these malfunctions and cuts off circulation to a perfectly healthy limb?)
This seems to be just your average pork barrel gee whiz military contracting.
Agreed. This is going to cause military costs to increase significantly with very little tangible benefit.
The understanding with the merchants is that the excess patterns are NOT to be sold. Monsterpatterns is disrupting this process.
But Monsterpatterns is not a party to the contractual agreement between the pattern manufacturer and the pattern retailer. If the retailer fails to execute their part of the agreement, no third party is bound to abide by the agreement in their stead.
"They're doing something that's not illegal but it's messing up our business model" is not a justification to sue. It's a sign that the business model needs to be altered.
('altered', ha... tailoring humor... thank you, I'll be here all week)
Joe User doesn't even know what Windows Update is, so never installs any patches for the operating system.
So Joe User never notices that 1 time in 20 when he starts IE, his connection gets hijacked to the Windows Update page instead of his actual home page?
(it turns out our CTOs code was at fault, the duffer).
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where a company large enough to have a CTO is simultaneously small enough to have the CTO contributing code. What the hell?
He may be the world's biggest asshole, but he has done nothing illegal. The First and Fourth Amendments give people permission to be assholes, and tell the story of their assholeness if they desire.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an frontal attack on the company and it's policies.
Assuming you are not trolling:
'Frontal attack'? This isn't a war. It's just capitalist business as usual.
Until a law is passed by the World Government requiring every electronic device sold everywhere to run a Microsoft OS, there will ALWAYS be consumer decision making.
It's FUD-spreading fanatics like you that ensure Linux will never enjoy broad acceptance beyond the geek subculture.
Well, try to buy Office 4.3 in a way that Microsoft or the BSA accept it.
There's about a dozen shrinkwrapped copies on eBay right now. BuyItNow prices under $10. There may or may not be license issues with these, but it's sure a lot closer to legal than leeching an ISO from Kazaa...
Or better yet, I guarantee that Microsoft offers support contracts that give access to all previous versions of all MS software products, EXPRESSLY for the purpose of testing.
You can send porn to a physical mailbox, and the person who gets the mail may be a minor, but you can't be held responsible for that minor seeing "inappropriate" material.
Maybe so, but I've never heard of anyone sending free porno mags out to random postal addresses.
The scenario you're describing assumes that someone at that address, minor or not, ordered the adult materials. We know with spam that it is RARELY the case that the recipient has knowingly and legitimately opted in... if they had, it wouldn't be spam, would it?
Your assumption is that the RIAA's accusations were groundless, therefore this lawsuit must be considered barratry.
Hold on, there.
With the kinds of bad intellectual property laws that are out there today (I'll mention DMCA here to be a karma whore), the issues are not nearly so cut and dried. Remember, the courts aren't a way to determine what SHOULD be against the law--they're to determine what IS against the law.
Maybe he did something illegal, maybe he didn't. Since he chose not to fight (and I don't blame him for that in the least), we'll never know.
I wonder if Microsoft's halfhearted support of PNG is deliberate. To be honest, it probably is, in an attempt to undermine open standards.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
--Hanlon's Razor
I really wonder if 58% overhead is worth it.
If your systems are crucial enough to justify a 58% overhead, you'll know it.
Being that this is Wired we're talking about, the assembly code will probably be printed in magenta text on an orange background. No EVILE HAX0RS will be able to learn how to 0WNZ0R from it.
And then the score rolled to -32k. I've never hated Microsoft as much as I did that day (and I hate them a lot). I was dumbfound. They can't code AND they can't play Tetris. And they call themselves professionals...
And I'm sure YOU'VE never written code where you put 'int' where you should have put 'unsigned int' instead... c'mon, as far as coding errors go this one is trivial.
If an affected user has an old email from you sitting around from which to steal your name, they can steal your PGP public signature from the email too.
Virus writers aren't crafty enough to attempt this yet, but then again so few people use or even understand the purpose of PGP (or GPG or whatever) that it wouldn't be worth their time.
Which is exactly why so many worms target Apache rather than IIS.
But since IIS is *easier* to exploit, less investment is required for a given return.
ROI can't be measure simply based on how many machines get afflicted, but rather the number of machines per unit of effort expended creating and propagating the exploit.
It adds another point of failure (`Fuck! My clothes have crashed!')
And when that happens, they fall back to the system we have now. There's no risk increase in introducing smart uniforms.
(Except for the "built-in tourniquet" garbage -- what the hell? What's going to happen when one of these malfunctions and cuts off circulation to a perfectly healthy limb?)
This seems to be just your average pork barrel gee whiz military contracting.
Agreed. This is going to cause military costs to increase significantly with very little tangible benefit.
The understanding with the merchants is that the excess patterns are NOT to be sold. Monsterpatterns is disrupting this process.
But Monsterpatterns is not a party to the contractual agreement between the pattern manufacturer and the pattern retailer. If the retailer fails to execute their part of the agreement, no third party is bound to abide by the agreement in their stead.
"They're doing something that's not illegal but it's messing up our business model" is not a justification to sue. It's a sign that the business model needs to be altered.
('altered', ha... tailoring humor... thank you, I'll be here all week)
Dear Michael:
Shut up. If you have a comment about an article, leave a comment in response. Keep your poorly-formed analogies out of the submission itself please.
Joe User doesn't even know what Windows Update is, so never installs any patches for the operating system.
So Joe User never notices that 1 time in 20 when he starts IE, his connection gets hijacked to the Windows Update page instead of his actual home page?
That's it, I'm going to have to take your bold tags away. You're obviously not responsible enough to use them properly.
I just dug a very deep hole, and filled it in again, neatly. I worked very hard. I deserve to be compensated.
I find your theory that gravediggers ought to work for free to be intriguing. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Okay, let's qualify the principle. "If work provides benefit, the executor of the work deserves to be compensated." Would you agree with that?
I guess "cheap" is relative, but I consider $500+ per year for a cable modem to be just this side of extortion.
I don't. I get download speeds roughly equivalent to a full T1 directly into my apartment, for maybe 1/10 the price. No complaints here.
Don't I have the right to profit for the rest of my life from my work?
Personally, I say yes.
What about my children? What about my grandchildren?
No. Wouldn't you rather that they create their own work rather than ride your coattails?
(who can afford $50/night to try to pick up drunk women who won't like you when they are sober)
Tucker Max, is that you?
(it turns out our CTOs code was at fault, the duffer).
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where a company large enough to have a CTO is simultaneously small enough to have the CTO contributing code. What the hell?
It may not be in the Constitution, but it should be.
Great, write up an Amendment and get it passed! Until then, we'll continue to base the law on precedent rather than your utopian fantasy.
I tried to patent patent barratry as a business model, but there was too much prior art...
That's what they said to me too, but I just sued the Patent Office...
He may be the world's biggest asshole, but he has done nothing illegal. The First and Fourth Amendments give people permission to be assholes, and tell the story of their assholeness if they desire.
The court ruling against him is troubling.
That's okay Doomrat, we already hate you.
-The Internet
I didn't say it would buy ONLY 50 of 'em.
If you pay $26 per each, then $2600 has indeed bought you 50 Atari 2600's. Additionally, it has bought you 50 more.