Wow, yeah, a few. You know, it's really interesting all the names one uses to refer to things without realizing those names were once trademarked product names. 'course, that would be why they are no longer trademarked.:) Still, fascinating... I wonder how many people, when they came up with one of those names, realized they'd be making a fairly significant mark on the English language.
Yes, this is absolutely possible. Which is why I said "might be the case".:)
I'm not sure, though, if a company could get away with such a thing, even if the Windows name wasn't trademarked. To sufficiently confuse people you'd have to duplicate a number of their trademarked items (the traditional Windows logo, etc), duplicate the box style, and a lot of other features. Basically, you'd really have to go out of your way to pull this off, and at that point, you might be able to litigate based on something other than the Windows trademark.
Why would they be forced to change the name? Kleenex wasn't forced to change the name of their product, and it's no longer trademark (because they neglected to enforce it). The same goes for Xerox.
The only thing the trademark gives them is the right to stop other people from misusing the term. Obviously this hasn't been a big issue for Xerox or Kleenex, so the same might be the case for Microsoft and Windows.
And I am truly amazed that there are still people who think that violence and pain are the best ways to deal with certain people, be it children, prisoners, or anyone else. Hell, I bet you don't believe it's moral to kick a disobedient dog, so why is it okay to inflict emotional and/or physical pain on another human being?
Did you know there was a time when people thought that electroshock was the only way to deal with schizophrenic people? Well, more specifically, it was seizure treatment... electroshock, insulin shock... whatever. But guess what, that was wrong. Period. Yet, at the time, they figured, hey, there's just certain people who only respond to shock treatment... and, surprise, surprise, they were wrong about that, too. And now we have lithium and a host of other psychoactive drugs to treat the symptoms, and people look back on the days of shock treatment with disgust.
Why do I bring this up? Well, I see physical/emotional abuse (yes, abuse... if you inflict pain on anyone, regardless of frequency or degree, it's abuse, the definition of which is "To hurt or injure by maltreatment") of... well, anyone, as being much the same. Why don't you?
Actually, it's a lot harder to control the player than it seems. Just look at DVDs and the whole DeCSS debacle. The movie industry explicitely tried to control all players, and they failed miserably.
Mods forgive me if I'm going off topic here, but can some explain to me why exactly this sort of competition is so bad?
Whoa, don't get me wrong here. I don't think having competing standards is bad at all. My only point is that, until a single, usable standard is in place, there is no guarantee that Joe Sixpack A would be able to by a set of DVD-Rs and have them be fully compatible with his drive. Moreover, the burned DVD-Rs might not work on Bob's DVD drive down the street.
Until we can have a reasonable guarantee of compatibility, your regular user will not flock to DVD-R as a CDR replacement, simply because of the difficulty of use.
That's a really good question... it would be worth checking out the legislation to see how the law distinguishes between blank and non-blank media. Or maybe the law proscribes levies based on the intended use of the media (I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case). Still, something to think about...
CDRs that have DRM features written at the beginning of the disk to keep you from writing "untrusted" content to the rest of it.
Could you describe how this could possibly be implemented? You'd have to have something in the CD burner, or software on the computer, which can take advantage of the data which is written to the pre-written part of the disk to enforce these "DRM" features. But 1) the disc is supposedly fully compatible with all existing CD burners (which don't have said features), and 2) anyone can use their own software for burning CDs (cdrecord, at the minimum).
Basically, without proof, I don't see how this is anything more than paranoid...
DVD-R, maybe....but CD-R's are simply too small. Apple and SUSE as an example distribute using DVD. The message is smaller media is already on the demise, so why encourage it.
Yeah, 'cuz DVD writers and their associated media are so incredibly cheap, right? Oh, wait, DVD burners cost on the order of 5 to 6 times more than their CDRW counterparts, and the difference in media cost is even greater!
Well, then again, at least compatibility amongst DVD writers is really good, right? No, wait, we have a variety of competing standards, and only now does it appear that a consensus is forming.
Sorry, but from everything I can tell, DVD writing is still in it's infancy, compared to the now-mature CDRW technology, so I wouldn't ring the death nell on CDR just yet. In five years, though, you might be right.
Possibly, anyway. We pay a levy here on blank CDRs. BUT, they must be blank. SO, with something like this, you might be able to conveniently skirt said levies, with a small reduction in capacity.
And that is the mistake in your logic. Like it or not, we don't all live in the same world, and we certainly don't live under the same laws (or, more accurately, the same enforcement of those laws).
Do you think your comfortable suburban lifestyle is anything at all like your average ghetto? Somehow, I don't think so. So it's entirely likely that many other things are also different... for example, the way cops behave toward minority groups. The example of the large party being broken up is an excellent one... in suburbia, the cops would knock politely and ask people to quiet down. But in the ghetto, they barge in, completely disregarding people's rights. This is discrimination, plain and simple... feel free to rationalize it, but that's what it is.
The tendency to produce software which includes everything but the kitchen sink is a serious problem these days. BIND is an excellent example of that, for exactly the reasons the parent poster mentioned.
Well, how else do you propose to test for buffer overflows? Sure, you can do your best to ensure they aren't written in the first place. You can audit your code to catch any of these things. But when it comes down to it, you should probably test for it somehow...
Bingo, the same interface, different implementations. And when they said "has no design commonalities", I will guarantee you, they were referring to the implementation. So I fail to see your point... unless you're concerned that the interface itself is insecure, which seems incredibly unlikely to me.
Sounds like current world Banana crops, which are genetically identical, for all intents and purposes (since they are reproduced asexually). Already there is fear of a disease which will wipe out world banana production. Fun stuff!
Unless you take into account the translation and retranslation of the bible, mistakes made by scribes during transcription, and other associated errors. Plus, the bible itself was written at some point, but are we guaranteed that was exactly when the events occured? Because if not, there could be errors during the writing down of these events, not to mention observer bias, etc.
What on earth makes you think that entropy didn't decrease as a result of the big bang? Do you know the entropy of the pre-big-bang Universe as compared to it's entropy now?
There are good reasons. Closed source project tend to come up with slick user interfaces more quickly, e.g. But that the companies selling it may make oodles of cash from their customers has to count as a truly lousy reason to become a customer.
Yeah, that's a very bad reason to become a customer. In fact, as a customer, it's your job to find a product which costs you the least amount of money while giving you the most bang for your buck. What the (closed source) model is (currently) good for is generating profit for the company. And isn't that the point?
Now, let's say the consumer of widget X decides that having the source to X provides added value. Well, companies that sell an OSS version of widget X will start gaining customers and generating more revenue, while the closed source dinosaurs lose cash. Voila! OSS is now a viable business model for widget X... companies will make more money selling OSS than CSS in this case, and the situation which now exists will reverse. The point is that there needs to be an economic incentive for companies to switch. It's called capitalism.
My whole point here is that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with a closed source model. Yes, it has it's drawbacks, but it works. And OSS also has it's pros and cons, one major one being that, right now, it does not a viable business model make (in general). So, making an outrageous claim like "all software should be free" is ridiculous... unless you're an OSS zealot or something.;)
Frankly, there are a lot of consumers out there who couldn't care less if they have the source code to the software they use (much like most people don't care about, say, the recipe for KFC). IMHO, source code availability simply doesn't provide real benefit to most customers (minus the claim, albeit dubious, that OSS has a lower average defect rate compared to closed source). Of course, the same thing isn't necessarily true for corporate customers (or power users, OSS zealots, etc.;)
but these professional programmers/coder might also be the ones programming the more buggy commerical closed sourced programs.
Yes, but there are two arguments to this. First, because the source is open, other professional developers can look over the code and find bugs in the implementation. After all, no developer is perfect, but having multiple eyes on a problem can expose defects quickly.
Second, the volume of bugs in closed source software could be attributed to the development model. After all, OSS has the luxury of virtual no, or at least very soft, deadlines. This means the developer can take his/her time and do things right. In a closed business model, often times there are immediate deadlines looming which may force the developer to cut corners, test inadequately, or just plain make mistakes due to rushing.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, yeah, a few. You know, it's really interesting all the names one uses to refer to things without realizing those names were once trademarked product names. 'course, that would be why they are no longer trademarked. :) Still, fascinating... I wonder how many people, when they came up with one of those names, realized they'd be making a fairly significant mark on the English language.
Nevermind, it's in the paper. :) Spandex and Escalator...
Hmm... perhaps what I heard was an urban legend, then. Are there other high-profile examples of trademarks being lost due to lack of enforcement?
Yes, this is absolutely possible. Which is why I said "might be the case". :)
I'm not sure, though, if a company could get away with such a thing, even if the Windows name wasn't trademarked. To sufficiently confuse people you'd have to duplicate a number of their trademarked items (the traditional Windows logo, etc), duplicate the box style, and a lot of other features. Basically, you'd really have to go out of your way to pull this off, and at that point, you might be able to litigate based on something other than the Windows trademark.
Why would they be forced to change the name? Kleenex wasn't forced to change the name of their product, and it's no longer trademark (because they neglected to enforce it). The same goes for Xerox.
The only thing the trademark gives them is the right to stop other people from misusing the term. Obviously this hasn't been a big issue for Xerox or Kleenex, so the same might be the case for Microsoft and Windows.
I know nothing of lasers, but is a multi-mode emitter possible?
Or just use calloc and move on with your life. :)
*sigh* Or not... I had it right the first time.
Damnit, preview! s/moral to kick/immoral to kick/. But, you knew that. :)
And I am truly amazed that there are still people who think that violence and pain are the best ways to deal with certain people, be it children, prisoners, or anyone else. Hell, I bet you don't believe it's moral to kick a disobedient dog, so why is it okay to inflict emotional and/or physical pain on another human being?
Did you know there was a time when people thought that electroshock was the only way to deal with schizophrenic people? Well, more specifically, it was seizure treatment... electroshock, insulin shock... whatever. But guess what, that was wrong. Period. Yet, at the time, they figured, hey, there's just certain people who only respond to shock treatment... and, surprise, surprise, they were wrong about that, too. And now we have lithium and a host of other psychoactive drugs to treat the symptoms, and people look back on the days of shock treatment with disgust.
Why do I bring this up? Well, I see physical/emotional abuse (yes, abuse... if you inflict pain on anyone, regardless of frequency or degree, it's abuse, the definition of which is "To hurt or injure by maltreatment") of... well, anyone, as being much the same. Why don't you?
Actually, it's a lot harder to control the player than it seems. Just look at DVDs and the whole DeCSS debacle. The movie industry explicitely tried to control all players, and they failed miserably.
Mods forgive me if I'm going off topic here, but can some explain to me why exactly this sort of competition is so bad?
Whoa, don't get me wrong here. I don't think having competing standards is bad at all. My only point is that, until a single, usable standard is in place, there is no guarantee that Joe Sixpack A would be able to by a set of DVD-Rs and have them be fully compatible with his drive. Moreover, the burned DVD-Rs might not work on Bob's DVD drive down the street.
Until we can have a reasonable guarantee of compatibility, your regular user will not flock to DVD-R as a CDR replacement, simply because of the difficulty of use.
That's a really good question... it would be worth checking out the legislation to see how the law distinguishes between blank and non-blank media. Or maybe the law proscribes levies based on the intended use of the media (I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case). Still, something to think about...
CDRs that have DRM features written at the beginning of the disk to keep you from writing "untrusted" content to the rest of it.
Could you describe how this could possibly be implemented? You'd have to have something in the CD burner, or software on the computer, which can take advantage of the data which is written to the pre-written part of the disk to enforce these "DRM" features. But 1) the disc is supposedly fully compatible with all existing CD burners (which don't have said features), and 2) anyone can use their own software for burning CDs (cdrecord, at the minimum).
Basically, without proof, I don't see how this is anything more than paranoid...
DVD-R, maybe....but CD-R's are simply too small. Apple and SUSE as an example distribute using DVD. The message is smaller media is already on the demise, so why encourage it.
Yeah, 'cuz DVD writers and their associated media are so incredibly cheap, right? Oh, wait, DVD burners cost on the order of 5 to 6 times more than their CDRW counterparts, and the difference in media cost is even greater!
Well, then again, at least compatibility amongst DVD writers is really good, right? No, wait, we have a variety of competing standards, and only now does it appear that a consensus is forming.
Sorry, but from everything I can tell, DVD writing is still in it's infancy, compared to the now-mature CDRW technology, so I wouldn't ring the death nell on CDR just yet. In five years, though, you might be right.
Possibly, anyway. We pay a levy here on blank CDRs. BUT, they must be blank. SO, with something like this, you might be able to conveniently skirt said levies, with a small reduction in capacity.
"we all live in the same world"
And that is the mistake in your logic. Like it or not, we don't all live in the same world, and we certainly don't live under the same laws (or, more accurately, the same enforcement of those laws).
Do you think your comfortable suburban lifestyle is anything at all like your average ghetto? Somehow, I don't think so. So it's entirely likely that many other things are also different... for example, the way cops behave toward minority groups. The example of the large party being broken up is an excellent one... in suburbia, the cops would knock politely and ask people to quiet down. But in the ghetto, they barge in, completely disregarding people's rights. This is discrimination, plain and simple... feel free to rationalize it, but that's what it is.
The tendency to produce software which includes everything but the kitchen sink is a serious problem these days. BIND is an excellent example of that, for exactly the reasons the parent poster mentioned.
Well, how else do you propose to test for buffer overflows? Sure, you can do your best to ensure they aren't written in the first place. You can audit your code to catch any of these things. But when it comes down to it, you should probably test for it somehow...
Bingo, the same interface, different implementations. And when they said "has no design commonalities", I will guarantee you, they were referring to the implementation. So I fail to see your point... unless you're concerned that the interface itself is insecure, which seems incredibly unlikely to me.
Sounds like current world Banana crops, which are genetically identical, for all intents and purposes (since they are reproduced asexually). Already there is fear of a disease which will wipe out world banana production. Fun stuff!
Yes, this is OT, and I like it!
Unless you take into account the translation and retranslation of the bible, mistakes made by scribes during transcription, and other associated errors. Plus, the bible itself was written at some point, but are we guaranteed that was exactly when the events occured? Because if not, there could be errors during the writing down of these events, not to mention observer bias, etc.
What on earth makes you think that entropy didn't decrease as a result of the big bang? Do you know the entropy of the pre-big-bang Universe as compared to it's entropy now?
There are good reasons. Closed source project tend to come up with slick user interfaces more quickly, e.g. But that the companies selling it may make oodles of cash from their customers has to count as a truly lousy reason to become a customer.
;)
;)
Yeah, that's a very bad reason to become a customer. In fact, as a customer, it's your job to find a product which costs you the least amount of money while giving you the most bang for your buck. What the (closed source) model is (currently) good for is generating profit for the company. And isn't that the point?
Now, let's say the consumer of widget X decides that having the source to X provides added value. Well, companies that sell an OSS version of widget X will start gaining customers and generating more revenue, while the closed source dinosaurs lose cash. Voila! OSS is now a viable business model for widget X... companies will make more money selling OSS than CSS in this case, and the situation which now exists will reverse. The point is that there needs to be an economic incentive for companies to switch. It's called capitalism.
My whole point here is that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with a closed source model. Yes, it has it's drawbacks, but it works. And OSS also has it's pros and cons, one major one being that, right now, it does not a viable business model make (in general). So, making an outrageous claim like "all software should be free" is ridiculous... unless you're an OSS zealot or something.
Frankly, there are a lot of consumers out there who couldn't care less if they have the source code to the software they use (much like most people don't care about, say, the recipe for KFC). IMHO, source code availability simply doesn't provide real benefit to most customers (minus the claim, albeit dubious, that OSS has a lower average defect rate compared to closed source). Of course, the same thing isn't necessarily true for corporate customers (or power users, OSS zealots, etc.
but these professional programmers/coder might also be the ones programming the more buggy commerical closed sourced programs.
Yes, but there are two arguments to this. First, because the source is open, other professional developers can look over the code and find bugs in the implementation. After all, no developer is perfect, but having multiple eyes on a problem can expose defects quickly.
Second, the volume of bugs in closed source software could be attributed to the development model. After all, OSS has the luxury of virtual no, or at least very soft, deadlines. This means the developer can take his/her time and do things right. In a closed business model, often times there are immediate deadlines looming which may force the developer to cut corners, test inadequately, or just plain make mistakes due to rushing.