This is not an original thought, but I read a good analysis elsewhere on Slashdot, that Microsoft needs to plan to move apps onto other operating systems in case they do get split.
They may not be doing this in-house, as an official project, but they most likely are giving the official go ahead to have this done.
To be honest, I don't think there will be any serious fall out from this except small start-ups might go with a Linux system and those Dell PC's shipping with Linux will be more appealing.
Okay, this isn't exactly the same issue. But working titles are meaningless. They are just a reference so everyone knows what project your are talking about. This one happens to describe what is going to happen in this episode. By far it is better than The Phantom Menace which sounds more like some bad 1940's black and white serial.
Here's an interesting comparison though.
A New Hope - The Phantom Menace
Empire Strikes Back - The Rise of the Empire
Return of the Jedi - ?? The Last Jedi ?? Jedi Dispersed ?? No More Jedi ?? Jedi Go Bye-Bye
I don't claim to be the best title writer but you can see the comparison of titles and the possible direction for the Third Title.
At the end of the day, though, no matter what they call it, even knowing the title years in advance, has no real effect on whether I'll see the movie or not. Call it Star Wars:That Space Fantasy Movie and I'll see it. It is the Star Wars part that is important.
My basic point was I really couldn't imagine any lawyer presenting as an argument "hey, it should be free if they can break in and get it" when in actuality, IMSM, the legal argument was the process of deencryption of and by itself does not infringe upon any copyright.
Defendants, on the other hand, are adherents of a movement that believes that information should be available without charge to anyone clever enough to break into the computer systems or data storage media in which it is located.
I may be way off course here, but I don't believe the defendants would ever make the argument as stated above. Even a foolish idiot wouldn't make such a spurious claim. The fact this judge has interpreted the argument in this fashion implies a clear biased.
I am not making a comment on the ruling as a whole, just this judge's view of the defendants. It is also interesting to say that the current framework is one that protects and harbors a monopoly.
Completely off topic, but I'm in a troll mood. Who care's who posted the story? I rarely look at who originated the story, I only care about the story and the analysis/commentary/bashing/and eye rolling.
I'm real sorry you didn't get credit for posting this story. But you should be pleased that a story you felt should be on Slashdot _is on_ Slashdot (which is a dubious honor, anyway).
Cheer up, maybe next time. And you'll get to wear the crown, hear the applause, and reign in glory until the next story is posted.
Voting, even through this cynical method, only lends legitimacy to this system. All government, even the most tyrannical, governs by consent of the governed. That consent may be received through threats of violence, such as in a totalitarian regime, through propaganda, through perpetuation of a myth (divine right of kings), or through active participation of the citizenry.
Every vote that is cast, even if it is invested in a 3rd Party candidate (don't believe anyone who says a vote is thrown away, those 'discarded' votes got the Reform Party 12 million dollars of government matching funds), is the citizen saying, 'Hey, this system works for me so I use it.'
It is a lot like going to a restaurant even though the service is bad because the food is wonderful.
By not voting, you are saying you are not legitimizing this system. You are refusing to accept the fact that you have been given a limited choice in a vital decision. Vote turnout is decreasing and it isn't because people are apathetic, it is because they don't want to be responsible for putting a Bush in the White House, or backing a lame-ass like Gore.
I give this site major kudos for laying the issue right on the line. I hope some of the major news sources pick up on it and let it shake out some commentary from the pundits.
--- I'm not just a Political Scientist, I'm also a Philosopher. Now who has a toilet that needs to be cleaned?
Re:Buying one voter, instead of all...
on
Voteauction.com
·
· Score: 1
If you don't vote for who you are told, you won't get the money. It isn't taking the power of choice out of your hand. If Hitler rises from the grave with a billion tons of Nazi gold and buys all the votes, you can refuse the money and stick to principle.
I for one believe votes are worthless and you might as well use it to make a statement. NOT voting is a strong statement. It is saying you do not wish to participate in a failed/flawed/corrupt system. By voting, even in this manner, you are further legitimizing this failed/flawed/corrupt system.
And to ward off those civic republicanisms who jump up on their patriotic high horses whenever they hear me say these things: I'm not moving. I love the country, I hate the politics. There is a difference.
You are right, there isn't a big conspiracy. It is just simple for our minds to slip into dystopic rhetoric. But I would like to see some analysis on how this truly creates efficiencies in the economy.
Will this ID Chip be compatible with other types made by other companies? Will there be a monopoly on these chips? What is the failure rate? Will I have to sign a waver of liability if the chip causes me some harm?
I understand this chip is in the very early phases. I also understand there is a need to have a greater sense of security in financial transactions. But I'll tell you what the best security is...getting to know your bank personnel.
I don't need high technology to guarantee my security because I bank at such a small institution that I know all the tellers, the receptionist, the loan manager, and the office manager. If I call and want to do something irregular, I get passed to the receptionist who knows me and we gab for a little while.
Is it fool-proof. Nope. No security mechanism is, and that is another potential problem with this Digital Angel. It makes the wearer believe they are performing secure transactions when nothing is 100% secure.
The benefits don't outweigh the costs. Period. They've got to make it cure cancer before I'd go that route.
(conspiracy) It can be turned off, so they say. How can we be certain of that? What other information could it be gathering on us? Is this not the ultimate 'Big Brother' device? A quote from their website, "Digital Angel(TM) will remain dormant most of the time. It will only be activated by the wearer or by commands from the ground station. Who controls the ground station?
In actuality, I see a lot of uses for this product, but I rarely trust major corporations to be looking out for my interests when my interests are not in the best interest of that corporation's bottom line. This reminds me of an article a friend of mine wrote on the Technocracy.
The most amazing thing about this kind of technology is it is actually being pursued. While the benefits are reasonably obvious, the potential for misuse is extreme and a strong majority of dystopic novels begin with this kind of advance. I want to affirm that I am not saying this shouldn't be pursued. I like the idea of never being 'lost'.
I just can't wait for the first 'signal masks' to come out, which relay your signal to a different location. That way when someone goes out to rob a bank, they have an airtight alibi (my Angel location log clearly shows I was at home that night.)
I have to disagree. I believe this story has a strong reason to be here. My CFO gets CFO Magazine and will be reading this article. While my shop is almost a Microsoft Shop, we run our servers on Novell, have brought one NT box into the comproom and now have one Linux box. We are in a position to put in an intranet server and I want that to be Linux. When running it through the budget, it is good to know the CFO might be armed with this information. I don't know if he'll dismiss it as bunk or take it as gospel, but I now know what to plan for.
The whole issue of riders is consistently looked down upon because of the weird stuff that gets passed because of them. Moving sidewalks in Altoona still has to be one of my favorite pork barrel rider issues.
As a degreed Political Scientist, I am more than fully aware that nothing is ever pure good or pure evil. Have we ever looked to see how the first civil rights laws got passed because of riders? This doesn't make them right, but it needs to be accepted that sometimes good things come from it. Riders are features of our legislative system, not bugs, really, and because of that you will have to pay more.
The best way to prevent riders start by being well informed on legislation. And since you can't do that and hold down a full time job, the second best thing is to make sure SIGs that represent your causes are well enough funded to watch out for you.
Time to turn Slashdot into a lobbying group for issues that concern Geeks.
Read the full defination. Piracy is not theft. They are different crimes in the criminal code.
Piracy has evolved into having several different meanings. Copyright violation is one of those meanings. The capture of property in peacetime on the ocean or in the air is another.
I'll leave it up to the reader to decide which defination applies to copies of software.
OT
The private citizen is not a dead duck. The private citizen has just got to learn to organize in groups. Does AARP sound familiar? They are a well funded, vicious, lobbying group that does one thing, look out for the rights of the elderly.
What I want is AAGP (American Association of Geeky People) that I send $10 a month to in order for them to moniter legislation for things that might infringe upon my geekiness.
Laws are not made in laboratories. They are made in sausage factories, with each little bit being rehashed, ground and spewed into little casings, at each step, nasty bits can fall into it.
The private citizen has many watchdogs working for them, but they have to contribute to them. Money does call the shots. But it isn't necessarily who has the most, it is how it is used. An elected official needs to come home and answer for his deeds. If a watchdog group knows that official did something bad, local advertising regarding it is cheap and leaves a lasting impression.
The internet can (not necessarily will) create efficiencies in economy. These efficiencies are normally attained through the elimination of the middleman. In the case of music, the middleman is the record company.
An artist has the full right to market themselves, record and sell their own cd's, promote their own tours, and do all the business. Of course, that wouldn't leave them much time to do the job that makes all of this necessary. But a new industry will be created that these artists can tap into. Whether it becomes an extension of the Agent's job, or Publicity Director, or just something that gets 'outsourced' the point is, the role of the record company is being diminished.
All of these debates on MP3's, Napster, etc. have had one central theme, a respect for the artist. What if the artist truly freed herself from the record company? Would we the consumer care? No. We don't like an artist because of their label, we like the artist because of their music. The only purpose of the label is to help increase the popularity and awareness of the artist's music.
In order for this to really work, though, you'll need to get some mega-stars (Madonna, Michael Jackson, Elton John) to dump their contracts and go it alone. They would be able to pump enough money into the new way to actually create a strong demand, prove it can be done, and truly build a new industry.
Just a quick reality check, most legislation is generated by trade groups and other lobbyists like the RIAA. Do you really think your elected officials are so skilled as to know all the nuances of the technical aspects of every law they pass? Hell, no, our elected officials are to have the wisdom to turn to experts to craft the legislation and then, through the process, corrupt and defile it until it doesn't resemble anything worthwhile.
If it is positive legislation, they will make sure it is gutted by not providing adequate funding. If it is negative legislation, they will push it through and add their own nasty twists and turns to it.
Alright, that is overly cynical and not at all based on truth. The point is, like it or not, our legislators rely on interest groups to develop legislation. These are the witnesses they call before committees to attempt to educate themselves on the topic.
With more and more artists coming out not necessarily for Napster but decidedly against the RIAA and with the RIAA claiming in court that they are protecting the artists of the labels, one can see there is a fallacy in their argument. RIAA is realizing it is lacking allies in their widespread attacks. I kind of hope what we are seeing are death spasms, but I know that isn't the case.
Right now, the RIAA needs to be able to present a unified front of artists, even though it represents the record labels. But their lawyers know that in general the best way to get sympathy is by having the artist claim to be hurt. The one thing that seems to be genuinely true through this whole mess is each side wants to see the artist succeed. Well, then let's cut out the middleman, the record label, and let the artist do the business end. The artist can hire a marketing firm and such to get themselves known.
I believe it would reshape the industry, create more jobs, and strengthen the role of the artist in our society. It might also cure cancer, but I can't be sure of that.
Maybe, if anything good does come out of the Napster debacle, it will be the record labels and the artists come to some core agreements on compensation.
What I would really like to see is all the recording artists go on strike. But that isn't going to happen, too many artists seek fame and the joy of making the music over money.
I used to think as you did, that piracy involved some sort of monetary element (i.e. stealing cargo) but according to the defination of piracy, it is any infraction against a copyright.
Now this is an interesting litmus to determine if software is truly abandoned, and give Microsoft and other large companies a way out. Essentially, for software to keep its copyright, the company has to show it has published it every five years.
It would almost be like Disney and its movies. Microsoft could publish Windows 3.1 every five years, demonstrating it has maintained an active commercial interest in the product, while giving anyone who wants/needs it (hey, I still have a 386) a chance to get a copy of it.
Software that can't find someone to release it in a five year time is abandoned. Then some amount of bickering can be done for a company to 'reclaim' the rights, but that is for the lawyers to figure out.
I agree a re-release puts the abandonware issue on uneasy ground. But a re-release would/should include some updated code tweaks or other stuff to give it value.
The question comes up as to why it is being re-released? Where did the demand for the product come from? Most likely it is because people have been using the abandonware but want to 'own' it again.
If I had a nickle for every game I've purchased for my TI-99/4a and my C-64, I'd have a hellava lot of nickles, my friends. I've purchased these games once, if I can find them for my Windows machine, then I'm getting them. If the programmer does the work for me and does a compilation of the games, I'm all over it.
I feel the ball is in the producer's court. If a demand is there, fill it. If the demand isn't enough to make a profit, then let it grow through the abandonware and then capitalize upon the free marketing the game has been getting.
Would there have been a demand for re-releases of PacMan, Asteroids, etc. if there weren't all those hacked copies around? Eventually, people like myself, get tired of the cracked copy and want something substantial. This is what had led me to buy SimCity classic -- after playing it for free off the web. Nevermind I have enough other Sim games to keep my happy, nothing scratches an itch like some of those older games.
But would I have realized I had that itch if I didn't get a chance to play SimCity classic again?
I doubt it. It wasn't until my girlfriend brought over her old Atari game system that I had a desire to play Dig Dug and Pitfall. In the entertainment world a demand has to be created. No one is sitting around dying because they can't play Hunt the Wumpus.
If you can't see the difference between downloading a song (i.e. copyright violation) and stealing from a store, then there are some significant problems at hand besides Napster. And unfortunately, I don't think you are alone in your opinion.
Trace the theft. At what point in my downloading a song an artist did not agree to did I deny someone property? My crime is copyright infringement which is not theft. If it was theft, then in the legal briefs filed, Napster would be accused of abetting in theft not in assisting piracy (using definition #2, not #1).
Not only will it be your 'official email address' but they will encode it to the individual. Your social security number will become your address. These numbers will be embedded into our arms so we can access our email via public terminals.
Soon the embedded chip will be able to connect with beepers so you can be notified when you've recieved an official email.
Then special equipment will be placed around cities to track you down so physical packages can be delivered to you no matter where you are.
"Yes, yes, this will work quite nicely....", says the New World Order uber-chief, George H. Bush.
If this is to be done, and I highly stress the if, I would highly recommend that it be done on a local level. Let neighborhoods set up email services for their area. Let it be divided by school districts or some other small unit.
Trying to do something like this on a national level is, not trying to understate it, asking for trouble. First, the conspiracy nuts will have a field day with it. Second, suddenly we are taxed to have an email account that we don't need because K-Mart offers free internet access and Yahoo! offers free email. But none-the-less we are taxed, all in the name of closing that Digital Divide.
I was watching Turn Ben Stein On the other night and he had a guest on (some rap singer that I really wish I could remember) who was pushing to close the divide. They had an amazing conversation with Ben stating matter of factly, if the government really wanted to close the digital divide, they could do it by simply buying a computer for each family below the poverty line. A cheap system runs $600 and the overall cost wouldn't even be a billion dollars.
I was surprised this came from Stein but I think he was simply stating that this is only an issue because someone somewhere wants to make it an issue and it is easy enough to rectify.
Giving everyone an email address only creates another complicated layer of bureaucracy in our lives. I can see getting snail-mail telling me my email box is full and it will be emptied. Spending money that doesn't have to be spent just to seem like it is technologically 'with-it' is not what I want from my post office. What I want from the USPS is quite simple. Cheap postage, cool stamps, and my Discover bill delivered to me before it is due.
You raise an interesting point. But I'd like to differ slightly on one of your premises. Price does get people's attention, but not having to think about the computer ranks as an incredible high priority.
As always, when dealing with any tech issue, I try to imagine my parents or older brother's and sister's using it. My parent's don't like it when their computer crashes, but they have gotten used to the typical Windows lock-ups that occur and accept it as par for the course. It is the known evil of using the product.
It is also the same reason why they use AOL even when they have two sons telling them to dump it and move to Earthlink or the local Montana option. But the comfort of knowing everyone else is going through the same pains keeps them with what they have.
Trying to get them to accept an operating system that is even a little different (they are 95 users) doesn't work. Imagine trying to convince them to switch to an open sourced operating system that might not be compatible with all their current software. That might make them have to reconfigure system settings.
People are sheep. People like stability. People will willingly pay more just for the sense of comfort and security...knowing they are in a pack.
Slashdot Mirror
They may not be doing this in-house, as an official project, but they most likely are giving the official go ahead to have this done.
To be honest, I don't think there will be any serious fall out from this except small start-ups might go with a Linux system and those Dell PC's shipping with Linux will be more appealing.
Okay, this isn't exactly the same issue. But working titles are meaningless. They are just a reference so everyone knows what project your are talking about. This one happens to describe what is going to happen in this episode. By far it is better than The Phantom Menace which sounds more like some bad 1940's black and white serial.
Here's an interesting comparison though.
A New Hope - The Phantom Menace
Empire Strikes Back - The Rise of the Empire
Return of the Jedi - ?? The Last Jedi ?? Jedi Dispersed ?? No More Jedi ?? Jedi Go Bye-Bye
I don't claim to be the best title writer but you can see the comparison of titles and the possible direction for the Third Title.
At the end of the day, though, no matter what they call it, even knowing the title years in advance, has no real effect on whether I'll see the movie or not. Call it Star Wars:That Space Fantasy Movie and I'll see it. It is the Star Wars part that is important.
My basic point was I really couldn't imagine any lawyer presenting as an argument "hey, it should be free if they can break in and get it" when in actuality, IMSM, the legal argument was the process of deencryption of and by itself does not infringe upon any copyright.
I may be way off course here, but I don't believe the defendants would ever make the argument as stated above. Even a foolish idiot wouldn't make such a spurious claim. The fact this judge has interpreted the argument in this fashion implies a clear biased.
I am not making a comment on the ruling as a whole, just this judge's view of the defendants. It is also interesting to say that the current framework is one that protects and harbors a monopoly.
I'm real sorry you didn't get credit for posting this story. But you should be pleased that a story you felt should be on Slashdot _is on_ Slashdot (which is a dubious honor, anyway).
Cheer up, maybe next time. And you'll get to wear the crown, hear the applause, and reign in glory until the next story is posted.
Every vote that is cast, even if it is invested in a 3rd Party candidate (don't believe anyone who says a vote is thrown away, those 'discarded' votes got the Reform Party 12 million dollars of government matching funds), is the citizen saying, 'Hey, this system works for me so I use it.'
It is a lot like going to a restaurant even though the service is bad because the food is wonderful.
By not voting, you are saying you are not legitimizing this system. You are refusing to accept the fact that you have been given a limited choice in a vital decision. Vote turnout is decreasing and it isn't because people are apathetic, it is because they don't want to be responsible for putting a Bush in the White House, or backing a lame-ass like Gore.
I give this site major kudos for laying the issue right on the line. I hope some of the major news sources pick up on it and let it shake out some commentary from the pundits.
---
I'm not just a Political Scientist, I'm also a Philosopher. Now who has a toilet that needs to be cleaned?
I for one believe votes are worthless and you might as well use it to make a statement. NOT voting is a strong statement. It is saying you do not wish to participate in a failed/flawed/corrupt system. By voting, even in this manner, you are further legitimizing this failed/flawed/corrupt system.
And to ward off those civic republicanisms who jump up on their patriotic high horses whenever they hear me say these things: I'm not moving. I love the country, I hate the politics. There is a difference.
Will this ID Chip be compatible with other types made by other companies? Will there be a monopoly on these chips? What is the failure rate? Will I have to sign a waver of liability if the chip causes me some harm?
I understand this chip is in the very early phases. I also understand there is a need to have a greater sense of security in financial transactions. But I'll tell you what the best security is...getting to know your bank personnel.
I don't need high technology to guarantee my security because I bank at such a small institution that I know all the tellers, the receptionist, the loan manager, and the office manager. If I call and want to do something irregular, I get passed to the receptionist who knows me and we gab for a little while.
Is it fool-proof. Nope. No security mechanism is, and that is another potential problem with this Digital Angel. It makes the wearer believe they are performing secure transactions when nothing is 100% secure.
The benefits don't outweigh the costs. Period. They've got to make it cure cancer before I'd go that route.
In actuality, I see a lot of uses for this product, but I rarely trust major corporations to be looking out for my interests when my interests are not in the best interest of that corporation's bottom line. This reminds me of an article a friend of mine wrote on the Technocracy.
The most amazing thing about this kind of technology is it is actually being pursued. While the benefits are reasonably obvious, the potential for misuse is extreme and a strong majority of dystopic novels begin with this kind of advance. I want to affirm that I am not saying this shouldn't be pursued. I like the idea of never being 'lost'.
I just can't wait for the first 'signal masks' to come out, which relay your signal to a different location. That way when someone goes out to rob a bank, they have an airtight alibi (my Angel location log clearly shows I was at home that night.)
I have to disagree. I believe this story has a strong reason to be here. My CFO gets CFO Magazine and will be reading this article. While my shop is almost a Microsoft Shop, we run our servers on Novell, have brought one NT box into the comproom and now have one Linux box. We are in a position to put in an intranet server and I want that to be Linux. When running it through the budget, it is good to know the CFO might be armed with this information. I don't know if he'll dismiss it as bunk or take it as gospel, but I now know what to plan for.
As a degreed Political Scientist, I am more than fully aware that nothing is ever pure good or pure evil. Have we ever looked to see how the first civil rights laws got passed because of riders? This doesn't make them right, but it needs to be accepted that sometimes good things come from it. Riders are features of our legislative system, not bugs, really, and because of that you will have to pay more.
The best way to prevent riders start by being well informed on legislation. And since you can't do that and hold down a full time job, the second best thing is to make sure SIGs that represent your causes are well enough funded to watch out for you.
Time to turn Slashdot into a lobbying group for issues that concern Geeks.
Piracy has evolved into having several different meanings. Copyright violation is one of those meanings. The capture of property in peacetime on the ocean or in the air is another.
I'll leave it up to the reader to decide which defination applies to copies of software.
The private citizen is not a dead duck. The private citizen has just got to learn to organize in groups. Does AARP sound familiar? They are a well funded, vicious, lobbying group that does one thing, look out for the rights of the elderly.
What I want is AAGP (American Association of Geeky People) that I send $10 a month to in order for them to moniter legislation for things that might infringe upon my geekiness.
Laws are not made in laboratories. They are made in sausage factories, with each little bit being rehashed, ground and spewed into little casings, at each step, nasty bits can fall into it.
The private citizen has many watchdogs working for them, but they have to contribute to them. Money does call the shots. But it isn't necessarily who has the most, it is how it is used. An elected official needs to come home and answer for his deeds. If a watchdog group knows that official did something bad, local advertising regarding it is cheap and leaves a lasting impression.
An artist has the full right to market themselves, record and sell their own cd's, promote their own tours, and do all the business. Of course, that wouldn't leave them much time to do the job that makes all of this necessary. But a new industry will be created that these artists can tap into. Whether it becomes an extension of the Agent's job, or Publicity Director, or just something that gets 'outsourced' the point is, the role of the record company is being diminished.
All of these debates on MP3's, Napster, etc. have had one central theme, a respect for the artist. What if the artist truly freed herself from the record company? Would we the consumer care? No. We don't like an artist because of their label, we like the artist because of their music. The only purpose of the label is to help increase the popularity and awareness of the artist's music.
In order for this to really work, though, you'll need to get some mega-stars (Madonna, Michael Jackson, Elton John) to dump their contracts and go it alone. They would be able to pump enough money into the new way to actually create a strong demand, prove it can be done, and truly build a new industry.
If it is positive legislation, they will make sure it is gutted by not providing adequate funding. If it is negative legislation, they will push it through and add their own nasty twists and turns to it.
Alright, that is overly cynical and not at all based on truth. The point is, like it or not, our legislators rely on interest groups to develop legislation. These are the witnesses they call before committees to attempt to educate themselves on the topic.
With more and more artists coming out not necessarily for Napster but decidedly against the RIAA and with the RIAA claiming in court that they are protecting the artists of the labels, one can see there is a fallacy in their argument. RIAA is realizing it is lacking allies in their widespread attacks. I kind of hope what we are seeing are death spasms, but I know that isn't the case.
Right now, the RIAA needs to be able to present a unified front of artists, even though it represents the record labels. But their lawyers know that in general the best way to get sympathy is by having the artist claim to be hurt. The one thing that seems to be genuinely true through this whole mess is each side wants to see the artist succeed. Well, then let's cut out the middleman, the record label, and let the artist do the business end. The artist can hire a marketing firm and such to get themselves known.
I believe it would reshape the industry, create more jobs, and strengthen the role of the artist in our society. It might also cure cancer, but I can't be sure of that.
Maybe, if anything good does come out of the Napster debacle, it will be the record labels and the artists come to some core agreements on compensation.
What I would really like to see is all the recording artists go on strike. But that isn't going to happen, too many artists seek fame and the joy of making the music over money.
I used to think as you did, that piracy involved some sort of monetary element (i.e. stealing cargo) but according to the defination of piracy, it is any infraction against a copyright.
It would almost be like Disney and its movies. Microsoft could publish Windows 3.1 every five years, demonstrating it has maintained an active commercial interest in the product, while giving anyone who wants/needs it (hey, I still have a 386) a chance to get a copy of it.
Software that can't find someone to release it in a five year time is abandoned. Then some amount of bickering can be done for a company to 'reclaim' the rights, but that is for the lawyers to figure out.
DOS 6.0, please.
The question comes up as to why it is being re-released? Where did the demand for the product come from? Most likely it is because people have been using the abandonware but want to 'own' it again.
If I had a nickle for every game I've purchased for my TI-99/4a and my C-64, I'd have a hellava lot of nickles, my friends. I've purchased these games once, if I can find them for my Windows machine, then I'm getting them. If the programmer does the work for me and does a compilation of the games, I'm all over it.
I feel the ball is in the producer's court. If a demand is there, fill it. If the demand isn't enough to make a profit, then let it grow through the abandonware and then capitalize upon the free marketing the game has been getting.
But would I have realized I had that itch if I didn't get a chance to play SimCity classic again?
I doubt it. It wasn't until my girlfriend brought over her old Atari game system that I had a desire to play Dig Dug and Pitfall. In the entertainment world a demand has to be created. No one is sitting around dying because they can't play Hunt the Wumpus.
Trace the theft. At what point in my downloading a song an artist did not agree to did I deny someone property? My crime is copyright infringement which is not theft. If it was theft, then in the legal briefs filed, Napster would be accused of abetting in theft not in assisting piracy (using definition #2, not #1).
Soon the embedded chip will be able to connect with beepers so you can be notified when you've recieved an official email.
Then special equipment will be placed around cities to track you down so physical packages can be delivered to you no matter where you are.
"Yes, yes, this will work quite nicely....", says the New World Order uber-chief, George H. Bush.
Rest assured, this will never come to pass.
Trying to do something like this on a national level is, not trying to understate it, asking for trouble. First, the conspiracy nuts will have a field day with it. Second, suddenly we are taxed to have an email account that we don't need because K-Mart offers free internet access and Yahoo! offers free email. But none-the-less we are taxed, all in the name of closing that Digital Divide.
I was watching Turn Ben Stein On the other night and he had a guest on (some rap singer that I really wish I could remember) who was pushing to close the divide. They had an amazing conversation with Ben stating matter of factly, if the government really wanted to close the digital divide, they could do it by simply buying a computer for each family below the poverty line. A cheap system runs $600 and the overall cost wouldn't even be a billion dollars.
I was surprised this came from Stein but I think he was simply stating that this is only an issue because someone somewhere wants to make it an issue and it is easy enough to rectify.
Giving everyone an email address only creates another complicated layer of bureaucracy in our lives. I can see getting snail-mail telling me my email box is full and it will be emptied. Spending money that doesn't have to be spent just to seem like it is technologically 'with-it' is not what I want from my post office. What I want from the USPS is quite simple. Cheap postage, cool stamps, and my Discover bill delivered to me before it is due.
As always, when dealing with any tech issue, I try to imagine my parents or older brother's and sister's using it. My parent's don't like it when their computer crashes, but they have gotten used to the typical Windows lock-ups that occur and accept it as par for the course. It is the known evil of using the product.
It is also the same reason why they use AOL even when they have two sons telling them to dump it and move to Earthlink or the local Montana option. But the comfort of knowing everyone else is going through the same pains keeps them with what they have.
Trying to get them to accept an operating system that is even a little different (they are 95 users) doesn't work. Imagine trying to convince them to switch to an open sourced operating system that might not be compatible with all their current software. That might make them have to reconfigure system settings.
People are sheep. People like stability. People will willingly pay more just for the sense of comfort and security...knowing they are in a pack.