Software's not quite the same. Software is a complex tool that lets people accomplish things - accomplishing things is worthwhile, so software will continue to be developed even if nobody buys it.
Your reasoning is a non-sequitur. Just because software is useful doesn't mean it will be produced perpetually for free. Even if I internally develop software to enhance my business of selling widgets, I'm not going to be inclined to distribute it for free (eating possibly hundreds of man years of cost!) so that someone else selling similar widgets can benefit with no cost.
The abolishment of copyright would mean that software like this becomes a trade secret -- far more secretive and locked down than today's software.
but it's not so sad that I'd be willing to give up basic freedoms to preserve the MPAA's business model
I don't give a shit about anybody's business model. It's clear that the RIAA and MPAA haven't kept up with technology except when forced to do so. That said, the producers of works still have the right to decide how those works are distributed. If they take advantage of new technologies, great! If they find a way to take advantage of technology to minimize the reproduction/distribution cost but make money off ads, subscriptions, donations, or simply choose to give their creation away, great!
But it's their choice. At some point in the creation process someone decides to create something, and has certain motivation for doing so. They may be motivated by money, fame, true altruism, the purple dinosaur, or whatever. Based on their motivation they must have the right to choose how their work will be distributed, and not stolen out from underneath them.
It's more like scenario 2 if you put it like this: Someone makes identical copies of Joe's pumpkins and gives them away, therefore Joe loses potential sales.
In that scenario Joe eventually loses his original sales -- ALL his sales. Who's going to pay Joe for the pumpkin he picked when the guy next door is giving away the cloned ones for free (because he didn't have to do any work)?
Which means that only suckers/chumps would pick the pumpkins (or write the software, or create music), since their hard work would be immediately leeched away.
The thing is, the content being copied is almost 100% from the big content cartels who probably don't even really notice the peasants swapping tid-bits.
That's not a defense; the argument doesn't scale. You can't steal just because most other people don't steal.
Especially since the "artists" aren't always getting their share anyway, it makes little difference if your pirate or not.
I'm not a fan of the RIAA, but the solution is for these artists to take control over their own destiny and an increasing number of them are doing exactly that. Amen! I'm all in favor of the artists getting their fair share (which should be the bulk, not the remainder since they are the ones with the talent IMHO), but by stealing their hard work you're not helping them at all OR discouraging the greedy record companies.
The other thing about copyright is the whole attitude of milking your product for all you can. People you make it big, earn more money then their descendants will ever need. What ever happend to creating something for the betterment of society?
That's not for you to decide. I admire altruism, but as a software developer if I hit my head on the toilet and come up with a brilliant idea and spend tons of time and effort realizing that idea, I should have the power to decide (within reason) how that software is distributed. Maybe I give it away but make it GPL which restricts some things. Maybe I sell it shrink-wrap. Maybe I make it shareware, with hope that people will be generous enough that I can recoup my costs via. PayPal. Maybe I sell it to a small number of corporations for $20,000 each, with full personal support. It must be my decision or I shall choose not to make the software at all.
As an aside, very very very very very very very few software engineers, actors, directors, musicians, etc., make it big enough that they don't have to worry about money (i.e. making more than $75,000/yr. to pick a number out of thin air) yet alone becoming super-rich. Your perception is skewed by the.01% ultra-famous plus maybe the CEOs who are gobbling up an increasing percentage of wealth, which is another issue.
Someone hosting a bittorent site is NOT violating copyright. They do NOT host 'illegal', 'stolen' files.
I agree there's a difference, so in this case it comes down to intent (which is harder to prove).
I'm not trying to comment on this specific case, just the radicals who think violating copyright is OK with the false reasoning that since customer A didn't steal directly from customer B, no theft took place (ignoring the affect on the person (or people) who worked to create the software/music/movie/etc.)
Not sure if you're trolling... Their implementation works the same as any other. And they weren't 'the first to come up with' it. For instance I was using 'CoolType' in Acrobat Reader before Windows had it (and Adobe didn't invent it either).
I'm not trolling. Please provide a source that shows Adobe invented CoolType before Microsoft invented ClearType.
If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but at the time I was following typography and specifically anti-aliasing VERY closely and I had never seen an attempt to use RGB subpixels on an LCD display to enhance text rendering. The general *ideas* that Apple and others came up with a long time ago aren't in dispute, but applying those ideas to new technologies such as TrueType/PostScript font rendering on LCD displays *is* innovative. Furthermore, the specific innovations (and resulting patents) aren't simply limited to just the idea, but the implementation such as the algorithm to calculate the luminance of the subpixels to maximize the text readability and minimize fringing. Event today, the sub-pixel rendering on XP vs. Linux and Mac looks very different (and much better in my and most* other's opinions, at least for 6-12 pt. font sizes), suggesting that the implementation does matter.
* From what I've seen and heard, OSX does a better job with large font sizes, pure accuracy (vs. hinting to optimize for on-screen display) and general rendering of "fancy" fonts used for typography. However, Windows wins for everyday legibility. Linux is catching up, especially if you enable the features that specifically violate the patents.
Oh wait... no theft occured at all. There were no "goods" and nobody lost anything tangible at all. Why is someone going to jail for this?
Two scenarios:
1. Jane Doe spends 10 years of her life 80 hours a week and $400,000 in funding from family and friends and loans to successfully build a revolutionary piece of software, which gets promptly stolen and mass distributed outside of her control. Jane and her family lose their livelihood and has to declare bankruptcy.
2. Joe Sixpack picks pumpkins and sells them at the local market. Somebody steals Joe's pumpkins and he loses a weeks worth of sales.
So are you telling me that the person who stole Joe's pumpkins did an illegal act and deserves to be punished, but the person who stole Jane's software did not do anything illegal and/or does not deserve to be punished? Jane didn't lose anything? Or maybe she should have never bothered creating the revolutionary software. Or maybe she should have been a waitress on the side and never expected to make anything out of her life -- you know, pure, absolute altruism. Yeah, ok.
You guys fighting against the concept of copyright are fighting the wrong battle. Sure, the RIAA, MPAA, and blah, blah, blah, are heavy handed and not adapting to technology, but saying that only tangible goods have any value whatsoever is so extreme that you're never going to convince anybody (worth convincing) to abolish copyright.
And because parasites rode upon cattle's backs millions of years ago, the space shuttle is not innovative in any way! It's just carrying one organism from one location to another by means of external automotion!
Give me a break. LCDs were around for a long time before Microsoft invented ClearType. Why were they the first to come up with this concept, and why is their implementation still one of the best, despite attempts to copy it?
That's called innovation. People like you confuse innovation with some sort of "absolute invention" that doesn't exist.
1. Installation of any software. Computer manufacturers and customers are free to add any software to PCs that run Windows. ..
As long as customers are free to add any software to PCs that run Windows, they can inadvertently install software that's a virus, trojan, or other malware. Faced with the option to either lock down Windows so you can't install anything that's not pre-approved (like many cell phones and other devices), which would go a long ways toward fixing the virus/malware problem, Microsoft has chosen not to lock down the platform. This is undeniably good.
Exactly. Don't make me race the 3 cyl Geo Metro for 100 hrs to prove I'm worthy of upgrading to the K car and eventually just maybe getting a decent sports car one day that is actually fun to race with in the game -- regardless of the challenge.
Its not *nix bias, its picking the best tools for the job. Being able to pipe and redirect are *useful* abilities. They can easily shave half an hour or more off a day of coding. Because Windows does not support them well, and has no alternate feature thats as useful, it is an inferior development platform.
As someone who has done both Unix and Windows development, I admit that cmd.exe has many shortcomings. But what's this about not being able to pipe or redirect? That works just fine. And findstr.exe is a replacement for grep that works pretty well.
Beyond that, if you want to get fancy on the command line, as you mention you can use Cygwin or one of the more natively ported shells such as tcsh, which has an excellent Windows port. Since when do Unix developers need every tool installed as part of the base OS installation?
There are pros and cons of both environments, but it's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about.
But if you weren't, I'd happily wager with you that these so-called "socialists" bringing the lawsuit against Apple are doing so in Gucci suits, from mahogany desks, in their corner offices that they commute to and from in new Mercedes-Benzes.
I don't think anybody is arguing that the lawyers themselves aren't capitalists. However, there is a general perception that "those who can, do; those that can't, sue" equates to socialism. Whether or not this is 100% semantically accurate is debatable, but the whole idea of suing because you can't compete with the market leader is certainly anti-capitalism.
IMHO, what it boils down to is barrier to entry. Is Apple in a position where competitors can't compete because Apple has established a closed system and maintains absolute control? Personally I would say no. But then, I said the same thing at the time of the Microsoft trial (note that the court defined the market to specifically exclude Apple in that case). There are plenty of competitors in the online music space and the market could turn around overnight if a better device and software comes onto the market.
And became the richest man on the planet as a result. However, the hobbyist community is still thriving - now more than ever.
Things aren't perfect, but all things considered it's turned out pretty good. The software industry is still (IMHO) one of the most exciting and thriving industries in existance, and has been for the last 30 years.
So what's the problem? It's insanely myopic to believe that we would be better off if we could go back in time and force all software to be free (as in speech).
So, in other words, the Googlies are geniuses if it resists cracking but also geniuses if it gets cracked overnight.
Uhm, yeah.
(Nothing against Google - they do some great stuff and they remain my primary search engine. However, I find it funny how they get a free pass on everything.)
We say, sure, BUT we have complete creation and control of the methodology, it will be reviewed and vetted by the community (end users and independent analysts) and must strictly follow scientific principles... All of our studies are written as if they will be released publicly BUT it is up to the sponsor if the study is publicly released.
While I understand the reasoning, I don't think this should be represented as following scientific principles. In one of his most famous speeches, Cargo Cult Science, Richard Feynman specifically called out this type of research as being problematic:
"One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results."
"I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish at all. That's not giving scientific advice."
IMHO the open source community is just as bad on average, if not worse. You better believe they have an agenda and they often aren't held under the same level of scrutiny as corporations, who have to face up to investors, competitors, governments, and "lottery ticket" lawsuits (especially Microsoft these days). The solution? We need fewer one-sided publishing of studies. We also need more studies overall, as they naturally conflict and are situationally dependent, but together would paint a better picture of the state of the world.
Of course finding funding for unbiased studies that will be published regardless of outcome is probably hard to come by.
Re:"Always trust code from Microsoft"
on
Do You Code Sign?
·
· Score: 1
For some reason there is no option to never trust certain certificates.
As some may have noticed, I generally favor DRM and criticize people who pirate software and music.
But this is equally lame. Not because it's a bad idea, but because it's overly restrictive. They need to choose:
1. Minor discount: You now own the right to read the book. Just like when you license the right to use software, you still can't redistribute it for free, but you could own the right to use it on any and all devices you own. Also, since duplication costs are marginal, you should be allowed to re-download the book at (almost) no cost if the computer is lost, stolen, reformatted, etc. The license should also be perpetual.
2. MAJOR discount. In cases where the DRM restrictions are tight (as this article suggests), the book should be steeply discounted, as you're only licensing the right to use the book for a short period of time, and in limited capacity. Something on the order of 90% discount would be appropriate, depending on the restrictions.
Ultimately, the key is choice. As long as there is competition and consumers can make the choice to purchase the hard-copy or choose between various DRM/price combinations, it will all work out in the end. (Of course, I'm not overly optimistic about this being the case for college-level textbooks.)
This isn't just anybody going to some vaguely similar job, this is a high ranking Microsoft executive who's background and inside knowledge overlaps nearly 100% with Google's core focus.
I'm not a big fan of non-compete agreements, but based on the article this is by far the most egregious violation of a non-compete agreement I've ever heard of.
And I say this as someone who has worked in Kai-Fu Lee's division on one of his pet projects. He's a sharp guy and the project was very interesting, so I have nothing against him personally. However, he could have at least waited a year. From the article:
"Accepting such a position with a direct Microsoft competitor like Google violates the narrow noncompetition promise Lee made when he was hired as an executive,"
"Tom Burt, a lawyer for Microsoft, said Lee announced Monday that he was leaving for the Google job and had given no indication that he planned to honor an agreement not to work for a direct competitor for one year."
"At Microsoft, Lee oversaw development of the company's MSN Internet search technology, including a desktop search service released earlier this year. More recently, he has served as corporate vice president of the company's Interactive Services Division."
From the Microsoft bio page:
Kai-Fu Lee was responsible for the development of the technologies and services for making the user interface simpler and more natural. NISD includes technologies and products for speech, natural language, advanced search and help, and authoring and learning technologies.
As it is, the addition of a codec pack (which Real, Apple etc. could certainly produce if they wanted to) allows it to play almost any format of streaming media. Heck, I suspect that if Real or Apple approached Microsoft with a proposal to ship their codecs as part of a standard installation, MS would be more than happy to include it...
This is perhaps the funniest thing that the anti-MS people are missing. Microsoft built a completely pluggable system: you can add codecs to Windows, and you can use the platform APIs to play media in any application. Writing a media player in Windows can be done in ten minutes by slapping together a form in VB.
In other words, theoretically on Windows *any* media player could play *any* content, and users could pick their favorite combination.
So, here comes Real and Apple, and they don't want to register a standard codec that any media player can play. They try to force you to use their player to use their format, but then still leverage the codecs so they can play MS content! IMHO, if Real and Apple are losing in this system, it's because *they* are the ones trying to push proprietary technology that doesn't interoperate with the rest of the system, not Microsoft.
But the only thing the anti-MS pundits want is for MS to ship crippled software by being bound by different rules than their competitors because they have a "monopoly". The anti-MS pundits will cry until they force MS software to be so inferior (feature-wise) that there's no way MS can compete, and their share erodes.
Fortunately, sane people aren't buying it. The anti-MS people will be crying for a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
Software's not quite the same. Software is a complex tool that lets people accomplish things - accomplishing things is worthwhile, so software will continue to be developed even if nobody buys it.
Your reasoning is a non-sequitur. Just because software is useful doesn't mean it will be produced perpetually for free. Even if I internally develop software to enhance my business of selling widgets, I'm not going to be inclined to distribute it for free (eating possibly hundreds of man years of cost!) so that someone else selling similar widgets can benefit with no cost.
The abolishment of copyright would mean that software like this becomes a trade secret -- far more secretive and locked down than today's software.
but it's not so sad that I'd be willing to give up basic freedoms to preserve the MPAA's business model
I don't give a shit about anybody's business model. It's clear that the RIAA and MPAA haven't kept up with technology except when forced to do so. That said, the producers of works still have the right to decide how those works are distributed. If they take advantage of new technologies, great! If they find a way to take advantage of technology to minimize the reproduction/distribution cost but make money off ads, subscriptions, donations, or simply choose to give their creation away, great!
But it's their choice. At some point in the creation process someone decides to create something, and has certain motivation for doing so. They may be motivated by money, fame, true altruism, the purple dinosaur, or whatever. Based on their motivation they must have the right to choose how their work will be distributed, and not stolen out from underneath them.
It's more like scenario 2 if you put it like this: Someone makes identical copies of Joe's pumpkins and gives them away, therefore Joe loses potential sales.
In that scenario Joe eventually loses his original sales -- ALL his sales. Who's going to pay Joe for the pumpkin he picked when the guy next door is giving away the cloned ones for free (because he didn't have to do any work)?
Which means that only suckers/chumps would pick the pumpkins (or write the software, or create music), since their hard work would be immediately leeched away.
The thing is, the content being copied is almost 100% from the big content cartels who probably don't even really notice the peasants swapping tid-bits.
That's not a defense; the argument doesn't scale. You can't steal just because most other people don't steal.
Especially since the "artists" aren't always getting their share anyway, it makes little difference if your pirate or not.
I'm not a fan of the RIAA, but the solution is for these artists to take control over their own destiny and an increasing number of them are doing exactly that. Amen! I'm all in favor of the artists getting their fair share (which should be the bulk, not the remainder since they are the ones with the talent IMHO), but by stealing their hard work you're not helping them at all OR discouraging the greedy record companies.
The other thing about copyright is the whole attitude of milking your product for all you can. People you make it big, earn more money then their descendants will ever need. What ever happend to creating something for the betterment of society?
That's not for you to decide. I admire altruism, but as a software developer if I hit my head on the toilet and come up with a brilliant idea and spend tons of time and effort realizing that idea, I should have the power to decide (within reason) how that software is distributed. Maybe I give it away but make it GPL which restricts some things. Maybe I sell it shrink-wrap. Maybe I make it shareware, with hope that people will be generous enough that I can recoup my costs via. PayPal. Maybe I sell it to a small number of corporations for $20,000 each, with full personal support. It must be my decision or I shall choose not to make the software at all.
As an aside, very very very very very very very few software engineers, actors, directors, musicians, etc., make it big enough that they don't have to worry about money (i.e. making more than $75,000/yr. to pick a number out of thin air) yet alone becoming super-rich. Your perception is skewed by the .01% ultra-famous plus maybe the CEOs who are gobbling up an increasing percentage of wealth, which is another issue.
Someone hosting a bittorent site is NOT violating copyright. They do NOT host 'illegal', 'stolen' files.
I agree there's a difference, so in this case it comes down to intent (which is harder to prove).
I'm not trying to comment on this specific case, just the radicals who think violating copyright is OK with the false reasoning that since customer A didn't steal directly from customer B, no theft took place (ignoring the affect on the person (or people) who worked to create the software/music/movie/etc.)
Not sure if you're trolling... Their implementation works the same as any other. And they weren't 'the first to come up with' it. For instance I was using 'CoolType' in Acrobat Reader before Windows had it (and Adobe didn't invent it either).
I'm not trolling. Please provide a source that shows Adobe invented CoolType before Microsoft invented ClearType.
If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but at the time I was following typography and specifically anti-aliasing VERY closely and I had never seen an attempt to use RGB subpixels on an LCD display to enhance text rendering. The general *ideas* that Apple and others came up with a long time ago aren't in dispute, but applying those ideas to new technologies such as TrueType/PostScript font rendering on LCD displays *is* innovative. Furthermore, the specific innovations (and resulting patents) aren't simply limited to just the idea, but the implementation such as the algorithm to calculate the luminance of the subpixels to maximize the text readability and minimize fringing. Event today, the sub-pixel rendering on XP vs. Linux and Mac looks very different (and much better in my and most* other's opinions, at least for 6-12 pt. font sizes), suggesting that the implementation does matter.
* From what I've seen and heard, OSX does a better job with large font sizes, pure accuracy (vs. hinting to optimize for on-screen display) and general rendering of "fancy" fonts used for typography. However, Windows wins for everyday legibility. Linux is catching up, especially if you enable the features that specifically violate the patents.
Oh wait... no theft occured at all. There were no "goods" and nobody lost anything tangible at all. Why is someone going to jail for this?
Two scenarios:
1. Jane Doe spends 10 years of her life 80 hours a week and $400,000 in funding from family and friends and loans to successfully build a revolutionary piece of software, which gets promptly stolen and mass distributed outside of her control. Jane and her family lose their livelihood and has to declare bankruptcy.
2. Joe Sixpack picks pumpkins and sells them at the local market. Somebody steals Joe's pumpkins and he loses a weeks worth of sales.
So are you telling me that the person who stole Joe's pumpkins did an illegal act and deserves to be punished, but the person who stole Jane's software did not do anything illegal and/or does not deserve to be punished? Jane didn't lose anything? Or maybe she should have never bothered creating the revolutionary software. Or maybe she should have been a waitress on the side and never expected to make anything out of her life -- you know, pure, absolute altruism. Yeah, ok.
You guys fighting against the concept of copyright are fighting the wrong battle. Sure, the RIAA, MPAA, and blah, blah, blah, are heavy handed and not adapting to technology, but saying that only tangible goods have any value whatsoever is so extreme that you're never going to convince anybody (worth convincing) to abolish copyright.
And because parasites rode upon cattle's backs millions of years ago, the space shuttle is not innovative in any way! It's just carrying one organism from one location to another by means of external automotion!
Give me a break. LCDs were around for a long time before Microsoft invented ClearType. Why were they the first to come up with this concept, and why is their implementation still one of the best, despite attempts to copy it?
That's called innovation. People like you confuse innovation with some sort of "absolute invention" that doesn't exist.
None. Actually, it reinforces one:
1. Installation of any software. Computer manufacturers and customers are free to add any software to PCs that run Windows. . .
As long as customers are free to add any software to PCs that run Windows, they can inadvertently install software that's a virus, trojan, or other malware. Faced with the option to either lock down Windows so you can't install anything that's not pre-approved (like many cell phones and other devices), which would go a long ways toward fixing the virus/malware problem, Microsoft has chosen not to lock down the platform. This is undeniably good.
Exactly. Don't make me race the 3 cyl Geo Metro for 100 hrs to prove I'm worthy of upgrading to the K car and eventually just maybe getting a decent sports car one day that is actually fun to race with in the game -- regardless of the challenge.
C:\Documents and Settings\cooldev>rm -rf *
'rm' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.
Does this mean I'm secure?
Its not *nix bias, its picking the best tools for the job. Being able to pipe and redirect are *useful* abilities. They can easily shave half an hour or more off a day of coding. Because Windows does not support them well, and has no alternate feature thats as useful, it is an inferior development platform.
As someone who has done both Unix and Windows development, I admit that cmd.exe has many shortcomings. But what's this about not being able to pipe or redirect? That works just fine. And findstr.exe is a replacement for grep that works pretty well.
Beyond that, if you want to get fancy on the command line, as you mention you can use Cygwin or one of the more natively ported shells such as tcsh, which has an excellent Windows port. Since when do Unix developers need every tool installed as part of the base OS installation?
There are pros and cons of both environments, but it's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about.
But if you weren't, I'd happily wager with you that these so-called "socialists" bringing the lawsuit against Apple are doing so in Gucci suits, from mahogany desks, in their corner offices that they commute to and from in new Mercedes-Benzes.
I don't think anybody is arguing that the lawyers themselves aren't capitalists. However, there is a general perception that "those who can, do; those that can't, sue" equates to socialism. Whether or not this is 100% semantically accurate is debatable, but the whole idea of suing because you can't compete with the market leader is certainly anti-capitalism.
IMHO, what it boils down to is barrier to entry. Is Apple in a position where competitors can't compete because Apple has established a closed system and maintains absolute control? Personally I would say no. But then, I said the same thing at the time of the Microsoft trial (note that the court defined the market to specifically exclude Apple in that case). There are plenty of competitors in the online music space and the market could turn around overnight if a better device and software comes onto the market.
Even more sucktacular is the fact that the summary omitted this detail. You know it was intentional.
And became the richest man on the planet as a result. However, the hobbyist community is still thriving - now more than ever.
Things aren't perfect, but all things considered it's turned out pretty good. The software industry is still (IMHO) one of the most exciting and thriving industries in existance, and has been for the last 30 years.
So what's the problem? It's insanely myopic to believe that we would be better off if we could go back in time and force all software to be free (as in speech).
So, in other words, the Googlies are geniuses if it resists cracking but also geniuses if it gets cracked overnight.
Uhm, yeah.
(Nothing against Google - they do some great stuff and they remain my primary search engine. However, I find it funny how they get a free pass on everything.)
Being 18, they showed him, indeed, considering he will have a felony in the database tracking him for the rest of his life. In lieu of a job
Fortunately he won't be convicted, and hopefully the prosecutors will be made to look like fools at the same time.
I'm not condoning illegal activity, just common sense.
Or how about helping someone learn to print on an Apple II, and that someone later prints an insult about the teacher?
I got suspended in middle school for that middle school (a LONG time ago). Really.
It was slightly upsetting at the time, but in retrospect very funny.
We say, sure, BUT we have complete creation and control of the methodology, it will be reviewed and vetted by the community (end users and independent analysts) and must strictly follow scientific principles... All of our studies are written as if they will be released publicly BUT it is up to the sponsor if the study is publicly released.
While I understand the reasoning, I don't think this should be represented as following scientific principles. In one of his most famous speeches, Cargo Cult Science, Richard Feynman specifically called out this type of research as being problematic:
IMHO the open source community is just as bad on average, if not worse. You better believe they have an agenda and they often aren't held under the same level of scrutiny as corporations, who have to face up to investors, competitors, governments, and "lottery ticket" lawsuits (especially Microsoft these days). The solution? We need fewer one-sided publishing of studies. We also need more studies overall, as they naturally conflict and are situationally dependent, but together would paint a better picture of the state of the world.
Of course finding funding for unbiased studies that will be published regardless of outcome is probably hard to come by.
For some reason there is no option to never trust certain certificates.
Actually, this was finally added to XP SP2.
As some may have noticed, I generally favor DRM and criticize people who pirate software and music.
But this is equally lame. Not because it's a bad idea, but because it's overly restrictive. They need to choose:
1. Minor discount: You now own the right to read the book. Just like when you license the right to use software, you still can't redistribute it for free, but you could own the right to use it on any and all devices you own. Also, since duplication costs are marginal, you should be allowed to re-download the book at (almost) no cost if the computer is lost, stolen, reformatted, etc. The license should also be perpetual.
2. MAJOR discount. In cases where the DRM restrictions are tight (as this article suggests), the book should be steeply discounted, as you're only licensing the right to use the book for a short period of time, and in limited capacity. Something on the order of 90% discount would be appropriate, depending on the restrictions.
Ultimately, the key is choice. As long as there is competition and consumers can make the choice to purchase the hard-copy or choose between various DRM/price combinations, it will all work out in the end. (Of course, I'm not overly optimistic about this being the case for college-level textbooks.)
But CNet joins the party too.
I'm embarrassed for the industry. I mean, come on. The facts:
- Monad has scripting functionality. OMG, scripts can do bad things! What do you expect, AI that detects if a script has malicious intent?
- Monad has been out of Vista for a long time. Long before the stupid "virus" FUD started.
This isn't just anybody going to some vaguely similar job, this is a high ranking Microsoft executive who's background and inside knowledge overlaps nearly 100% with Google's core focus.
I'm not a big fan of non-compete agreements, but based on the article this is by far the most egregious violation of a non-compete agreement I've ever heard of.
And I say this as someone who has worked in Kai-Fu Lee's division on one of his pet projects. He's a sharp guy and the project was very interesting, so I have nothing against him personally. However, he could have at least waited a year. From the article:
"Accepting such a position with a direct Microsoft competitor like Google violates the narrow noncompetition promise Lee made when he was hired as an executive,"
"Tom Burt, a lawyer for Microsoft, said Lee announced Monday that he was leaving for the Google job and had given no indication that he planned to honor an agreement not to work for a direct competitor for one year."
"At Microsoft, Lee oversaw development of the company's MSN Internet search technology, including a desktop search service released earlier this year. More recently, he has served as corporate vice president of the company's Interactive Services Division."
From the Microsoft bio page:
Kai-Fu Lee was responsible for the development of the technologies and services for making the user interface simpler and more natural. NISD includes technologies and products for speech, natural language, advanced search and help, and authoring and learning technologies.
Where can I buy "Teh Snappy Inside" stickers?
Macs usually come with extra stickers that can be installed on other machines.
As it is, the addition of a codec pack (which Real, Apple etc. could certainly produce if they wanted to) allows it to play almost any format of streaming media. Heck, I suspect that if Real or Apple approached Microsoft with a proposal to ship their codecs as part of a standard installation, MS would be more than happy to include it...
This is perhaps the funniest thing that the anti-MS people are missing. Microsoft built a completely pluggable system: you can add codecs to Windows, and you can use the platform APIs to play media in any application. Writing a media player in Windows can be done in ten minutes by slapping together a form in VB.
In other words, theoretically on Windows *any* media player could play *any* content, and users could pick their favorite combination.
So, here comes Real and Apple, and they don't want to register a standard codec that any media player can play. They try to force you to use their player to use their format, but then still leverage the codecs so they can play MS content! IMHO, if Real and Apple are losing in this system, it's because *they* are the ones trying to push proprietary technology that doesn't interoperate with the rest of the system, not Microsoft.
But the only thing the anti-MS pundits want is for MS to ship crippled software by being bound by different rules than their competitors because they have a "monopoly". The anti-MS pundits will cry until they force MS software to be so inferior (feature-wise) that there's no way MS can compete, and their share erodes.
Fortunately, sane people aren't buying it. The anti-MS people will be crying for a long time.
I mean, I know /. is anti-Microsoft, but this is just drivel. Did you guys post this just because it was a negative review?
What the fuck has happened to this industry? The bias is sickening, whether it be for or against Microsoft, open source, or whatever.
What happend to the real geeks that can look at something and judge it by merit?