If you find out, I'd like to know how. My old laptop only had 128MB of RAM. My new one has 256MB RAM, but it's running XP and swaps the hard drive like there is no tomorrow. It drives me crazy because my USB mouse moves in spurts--moves fine for a few seconds, then stops while the hard drive swaps, then comes back, etc. It absolutely drives me crazy and more than once I've clicked the wrong icon as a result.
That said, I've migrated completely to Linux on my desktop and I'm browsing now in Linux/Mozilla. But I still have to support some MS projects so I can't go to Linux on the laptop just yet--although I'm planning on buying a new HD for the laptop and going dual-boot on it so I can use Linux 90% of the time and just boot XP when I need to maintain something. As long as I can copy XP onto the new HD without having to go through product activation--something I completely refuse to do.
Does it matter? Last I checked most of the U.S. population (i.e. more than 50%) still doesn't have Internet acccess. If it's no longer 50%, big deal--there is still a large portion of the population that can't access the net.
Here you have a blind person that's taking legal action to obtain something that not everyone has anyway--blind or not.
As soon as 100% of the population has access to the web AND a significant percentage of commerce is conducted via the web this might make sense. But while tens of millions of U.S. citizens don't have access to this medium and only a few percent (?) of the economy is based on the medium, this lawsuit is absurd.
Of course, you can feel jealous about someone who can get paid $100 for 2 minutes work
It's not jealousy. For it to be jealousy assumes I would charge $100 for 2 minutes of work if I could.
It'sbeing dissatisfied because you know the real cost of the service and know the real effort involved and can't reconcile that with what is being charged. A better example would be a locksmith being locked out of his own house with his tools IN the house and having to pay the mark-up.
You can have a lot of fun speculating about the price you'd like to pay. But that's not the economic reality
The thing is, it IS economic reality. That's why the prices of certs is now $49/year with the competition instead of $400+/year with Verisign. If there had been true competition and the price was $400/year that'd be one thing. The fact the price seemed insanely high and then the price drops by an order of magnitude in one year when competition is available simply proves the fact that they were ripping people off.
One thing is an honest return on investment. One thing is a competitive price. Another thing entirely is monopolistic pricing. And, yes, people do have a right to piss and moan when they are being unfairly gouged by a monopolistic company.
Also, I'm happy that $400 sounds like pocket change to you. There are MANY of us that run small business (i.e., just me, myself, and I) where the difference between $400/year and $49 is significant. Perhaps it's "only" pocket change to you, but it's a big difference for those of us that are slowly inching ahead in our business and don't want to pay absurd prices for trivial services. Not every secure SSL website is making millions per year with a staff and and accounting department to write that $400 check...
When will you learn about business pricing? If it's worth more to me than the price I pay for it, it's a useful service.
It's not necessarily a useful service, but it might be a necessary one.
If paying $400 per annum means that I get $401 additional contribution to my bottom line each year, it's made me money, and I'm doing it, and not complaining
That's silly. Sure, you spent $400 and made $401. That's a 0.25% ROI. Of course, the hope is that you make more than $401.
Even so, the fact that you earned more than you spent doesn't automatically translate into a fair or worthwhile service. If I get locked out of my house, anything that costs less than replacing a broken window makes financial sense. That doesn't mean I should feel good about a keysmith charging me $100 for 2 minutes at my door. Sure, it makes more sense than breaking a window to get in, but that doesn't mean I'm not getting ripped off.
The fact is that the SSL certificate authorities do little or not work. We pay them money because users will get a nasty certificate warning if we don't. That's it. Sure, I make money by paying them and that's the only reason anyone would ever do it. But that doesn't change the fact they are ripping you off by charging you an insane amount of money for no work on their side.
Certificates really ought to cost about the same as domain names... $9/year.
Most (normal) people don't even know that businesses with secure pages have supposedly been "verified." Thus it really doesn't matter who you purchase the certificate from as long as it doesn't pop-up a browser warning. No-one is going to do business with a site they don't trust. It's not like you go to a site, and say, "Wow, these guys look real shady. But heck, they have a Verisign cert, ok, no problem." That doesn't happen.
Building trust is an issue between the website and their potential customer. If the customer trusts the site, they're going to buy regardless of who signed the cert. If they don't trust the site, they're not going to buy regardless of who signed the cert.
Verisign and Thawte are, for obvious reasons, trying to promote the idea that their certificates cost more because users somehow trust their verification process more. That is BS. No-one cares because each individual person decides whether or not to trust the website in question.
In reality, all people want out of SSL is encryption. The decision to trust the business in question is always going to be the customer's and that decision will not be influenced by who signed the cert.
Definitely. I didn't even know "SSL certificate" supposedly meant the company had somehow been verified by some authority. I thought it was just secure communication until I went to get a certificate for my site.
It's silly. I think very, very few people (non-geeks) even know that when they see the "little padlock" it means the company they are talking to is supposedly verified. I think everyone evaluates the business they are thinking about ordering from BEFORE they even go to the SSL stage.
Further, the verification process of Verisign/Thawte is easy to get around. It's easy to get a cert assigned by them if you're willing to lie/forge. On the other hand, it's a damn hassle if you want to do their process honestly.
In the end, a user won't know if the certificate was acquired by someone lying/forging or by a company honestly going through the hoops.
As you said, it comes down to Visa/Mastercard. All users want is encryption, they don't trust Verisign to say "yeah, they're for real." They'll make that evaluation themselves. The only reason anyone pays for an SSL certificate is so that users don't get "certificate warnings" when they access the site.
No kidding. I was expecting no paperwork to be necessary on renewal. In my dreams. They asked for an entirely different sent of annoying paperwork when I tried to renew, and had raised the price by about $40.
That pissed me off and got me shopping. Within 3 days I had my certs issued by InstantSSL. $49/year, no fuss.
I just switched from Thawte to InstantSSL, too. I didn't even know there were cheaper alternatives now available until I had a run-in with Thawte over their procedures during my renewal process, which caused me to go shopping. Saved some good money in the process.
I started an online store on my site in September 2001. At the time I couldn't find anything cheaper than Thawte. I went through all the paperwork hassles, process, etc. and eventually got one--though it was issued to me personally because they had weird requirements to prove my business existed (even though it was listed in DUNS, has been in business since 1993, etc.).
Last month it was time to renew. I wasn't looking forward to it but I figured I'd just be able to pay the bucks and be done. But NO, Thawte presented me with a whole new set of documentation that I had to provide. Never mind it was just to prove that I exist personally since the certificate was issued to me as a person, not the company. Never mind we had already gone through this the year before and nothing in the certificate was changing.
I got supremely pissed off and did some searching. Found InstantSSL by Comodo. The standard cert is $49/year with discounts available if you purchase more than 1 year at a time.
A little skeptically I signed up with them. I had my certificate the same day with no need to provide paperwork because their system was able to establish the existence of my company. And it was registered to my company (as it should be), not to me personally. Pleased with their service I purchased another certificate for another site I'd been meaning to get secured--since they already had certified my company that cert took about 2 hours to reecive.
I gave Thawte the 1-finger salute. I asked for a refund for the renewal I had initiated and purchased 2 years with InstantSSL for less than I was going to pay Thawte for 1 year. This is even better since Thawte is owned by Verisign, so by going to InstantSSL I effectively am free of Verisign. Always good.
I highly recommend InstantSSL. It's the Godaddy of SSL certs.:)
... Or perhaps just connect the "Audio Out" port of your computer to the "Audio In" port of the computer. Or the "audio out" port of your stereo to the "audio in" of your computer.
Until they ban RCA stereo plugs and/or 3.5 audio in/out on soundcards, it's useless. Even if only gurus can create the MP3s of the DRM-protected work, once it has been converted to MP3 it will be traded normally.
Personally, I'd rather have all of my immobile equipment wired, including mouse & keyboard
Oh, I agree. My keyboard and mouse are wired, although the main reason I don't use wireless is because I don't want to have to spend money on batteries for my mouse and keyboard.
I was talking more about networking of computing devices (PCs, laptops, Palms, etc.). Although printers is a good example of a non-CPU device that makes sense to be wireless.
with wireless access for things like palmtops & notebooks.
Again, I agree. My desktop, non-mobile server is connected to my LAN via a wired connection because there is no nenefit in a wireless connection. My two laptops, however, are wireless. I hope to someday get my Palm connected wirelessly... Is there an 802.11b adapter for the Palm yet?
if you have more than one computer in your home, the speed for file transfers doesn't even compare between wired & wireless.
I guess it depends on how often you transfer files between them. My LAN is mostly so that all the computers can access the Internet, and the DSL is still the bottleneck there, not the wireless link.
Walmart offered CDs below cost? I can't remember when the last time was that I bought new hit CDs for under a buck at WalMart. Let me think... No, I think I always pay more than 10 or 12 bucks for the new stuff, and at least eight for the old stuff....
Now if you'll think a little harder you would understand that they are talking about WalMart offering CD promotions at under the cost TO WALMART, not under cost of production.
Hmmm, I don't know why you'd say wireless stuff is just a pain in the ass.
I recently upgraded my network to be wireless so that my wife's and my laptops can move around the house. It works perfectly and the freedom is great.
I believe the future is wireless everything. The idea of just being in the same room and being able to sync my Palm, or out on the porch getting the latest data from the Internet is just too nice to go back to wires.
Accoding to the article (which it pays to read), the price-fixing (MAP) was applied to the final price, not the wholesale price. In other words, the recording industry alleged they didn't really make any money off the practice because the wholesale price remains the same.
I doubt that, but the fact is "Minimum Advertised Price" is the minimum price that retailers sell the product for in return for help in advertising. If the practice goes away that just means WalMart has an incentive to sell the product as cheap as possible in order to attract more buyers to their store. As the article said, they even offered some CDs BELOW cost just to get people in the store to buy something else.
In any case, regardless of whether or not the recording industry benefited, the elimination of this practice SHOULD find its way to the consumer since the price increase was in the "last mile", with the retailer. And retailers will, once again, be competing with each other.
It's all academic, I get all my music from P2P and haven't bought a CD in like 4 years.
But as long as the gurus can do it, then soon everyone can. Most people can't write Windows applications, but 90% of the world uses them. Likewise, when Napster was around and the easiest thing to use that's where everyone was. As soon as that went away the true P2P networks, once the domain only of gurus, soon became flooded by the ex-Napster users.
All it takes is one guru to break through and other gurus will know, and it will soon after become common knowledge--even for non-gurus.
As many have said and many will say, as long as music is audible it can be copied. Perhaps it goes from Analog->Digital->Analog, but it WILL be copied. Trying to avoid that reality is an excercise in futility and a waste of everyone's time and money.
But MS sees it as a way to solidy their monopoly and the RIAA sees it as a way to keep charging high prices. I personally think they will both be wrong.
Not to mention the fact that some companies want to see pay stubs to make sure you are not inflating your salary claim.
What? If they want to see my paystubs to verify I'm not inflating my salary claim, I want to see THEIR paystub to make sure they're not underpaying me. To heck with that.
Truth is, I never ever disclose my salary history. That's completely irrelevant. Let's talk about the job you want me to do, how much I'm willing to accept, and whether that's acceptable to you. If I'm comfortable with the number and the company is comfortable with the number, my salary history is completely irrelevant.
The only reason they want salary history is to know exactly how much they can get away with offering you. That's BS. If they ask for that information, just put "N/A". If they don't call you back because you didn't give them that information, GOOD. It's not a company you want to work for. If they call you anyway then it is clear they don't really care and are willing to talk to you anyway. That tells you they are really interested in you.
My point is, don't blame MS because a user aquired a network operating system and doesn't know how to use it.
What? If only those users who really knew how to use their operating system were "allowed" to have a computer, we'd be back in the early 1980's in terms of how many people have computers.
The whole selling point of Windows has always been that it's so simple that anyone can use it. They're market is the idiots that don't know any bettre. Given that they know their market, it is entirely reasonable to criticize MS for allowing an admin password to be blank. If a user tries that the install should politely say, "You must provide a password." How difficult is that?
This isn't to mock you, but why exactly should a calendar/schedule be integrated with email? What's the purpose?
I've used Eudora since 1995 in Windows. It integrates with nothing. I've also never received a virus via email--well, I've received them, but Eudora never installed one for me.
Slightly off-topic:
I'm in the process of switching entirely to Linux. I just got my local server switched over to Linux and am loving it. Mozilla, using XMMS for music, still sharing directories and a printer to the remaining Windows stations (the server was/is a file/print server for other Windows boxes), works great. The ONLY thing I'm missing is Eudora. I'm still receiving my email in Windows because I love Eudora.
Can someone recommend a good Gnome email client? The more similar to Eudora the better.
Me: This talks about something not happening in real-time, and indicates the requirements for issuing a warrant. I don't see this second part being conditions on the police to act in real-time
You: One might ask, then, why you think they put it in the same sentence? If it's as unrelated as you claim, surely it would have been written as a separate sentence?
They both involve matters that involve search and seizure, although I still believe they aren't tightly linked except for that they share that similarity.
Why in the 7th ammendment dos it read: "In suits at common law, where the value in controvery shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwised re-examined in any Court of the United States..." What does the right to a trial by jury and the fact that the conclusion cannot be re-examined have to do with each other? What does 20 dollars have to do with it? They're all related to trials, but there is no overwhelming link between the clause about 20 dollars, the clause about my right to a trial by jury, and the fact that the decision can't be re-examined.
Run-on sentences were very prevalent in old English. If you read the Constitution check out how many paragraphs consist of just one sentence. It is also interesting how many times the word "and" and "but" in the Constitution imply the beginning of a new sentence, although they are actually preceeded with a semicolon or comma.
The very purpose of a warrant is to authorize search or seizure. Are you arguing that the only time a warrant is necessary is when there is no probable cause?
No, I'm arguing that a warranty is necessary when there is no reason to believe that a crime is currently in-progress, but there is reason to believe that evidence of a crime will be obtained if permission (warrant) is granted to enter a location and search for that specific evidence.
I.e., if the police think the murder weapon for some crime is in my house, they need to convince a judge of their reasoning. If he agrees, the warrant is issued and they can search the specified location for that weapon. There is no probable cause that the crime is in-progress, but there presumably the police have provided the judge with a reasonable explanation of why they think they will find the murder weapon at my house.
How can people be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," and at the same time give the police the power to break down their door at any moment for the slightest flimsy excuse?
If the excuse was flimsy, sue the police department or the officers involved. Sue the person that intentionally gave a false tip.
I also don't trust my neighbors to sic the cops on me only when I'm beating my wife, and not when they have some other personal vendetta against me. The neighbor claiming that I'm beating my wife is not sufficient as probable cause if there is no other evidence.
I'd say that someone reporting a beating in-progress is sufficient reason for the police to act. If they find out that it was a lie, then they should haul your neighbor with a vendetta to jail for filing a false report.
It is clear that historically it was expected that people defend themselves against criminals, using force as necessary. If you expect the police to do it for you, prepare to be disappointed, and quite possibly dead.
I fully support the right to bear arms. I even support the right to carried concealed weapons. If 1 out of 4 citizens carried concealed weapons I think current crime would go down; on the other hand, I can't ignore the fact that road rage could become more deadly if everyone carried guns.
This isn't the wild west. While I support the right to bear arms, I also recognize that many people don't want to bear arms. These people deserve to be secure as well and the police provide that protection. Sure, someone can break in and kill me before the police arrive. Those of us that don't have weapons in the house evaluate the risks. But the great majority of those that don't carry arms get through life without being physyically threatened by either crminals or the police. If you are harassed by either some neighbor or the police it is almost always because you've pissed someone off--and you, too, should evaluate the risks of pissing anyone off, be it a police, neighbor, drug dealer, or unknown stranger who many be any of the above. Everything has consequences, and it really isn't that hard to get along with everybody.
Sure, the police should respect your rights. But at the same time, is there any particular reason you should taunt someone in such away that provokes them to violate your rights?
While I see where you are coming from, and am generally in favor of reducing the reach of government, your interpretation would make the police essentially useless.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if someone calls the police and reports that she sees their neighbor beating his wife that the police can't act on that until a judge grants a warrant? In such a scenario the police would just be garbage collectors, documenting crimes that have already been permitted.
I am not a Constitutional scholar but I read that text as two separate points:
1. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
This talks about the right of the person against unreasonable search and seisure.
2. and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This talks about something not happening in real-time, and indicates the requirements for issuing a warrant. I don't see this second part being conditions on the police to act in real-time, as long as they can show that they acted reasonably based on what they considered a reasonable and reliable belief of a crime in progress. If they didn't, bad cops, and they need to be sued.
I really don't think the founding fathers had an impotent police force in mind that were not able to act on crimes in-progress. That itself enters into the realm of "unreasonable."
Can we finally stop the comparison between CDs and DVDs, since it is one of the most flawed comparison that exists. A DVD is an aftermarket product of a movie. A CD has made no money when it is released and must make enough money to pay for every single thing that went into the making/marketing of the CD
While this is a valid explanation of the relative pricing from a business standpoint, it doesn't mean squat to the consumer who has to decide how to spend $20.
Whenever someone at some company gives me justifications or reasons why they can't give me the service I deserve or paid for my answer is quite simple: "Your internal company problems are not MY problems, they're yours. You deal with your internal problems, but in the meantime solve the problem you have right now with the consumer--me!"
In this case, my heart bleeds for the RIAA (sarcasm), but I really don't care what their costs of business are, nor do I care if their business model is broken. As a consumer I see a $15 DVD for a movie I thought was fun when I saw it, or I see a $20 CD that might have one good song, maybe. Where do you think I'm going to spend my money?
Fact is, the DVD vs. CD comparison is a VERY valid comparison from a consumer standpoint. The DVD vs. CD decision is one that is made probably thousands of times per day by consumers around the world. It just turns out the business model of the movie industry is more profitable than that of the RIAA. Tough luck.
(Some) people buy Rolexes because of the prestige of owning one. There is also an arguable difference in visible quality, although the Rolexes of so many people I know have broken down and needed repair that even the quality issue is debatable in terms of the inner workings of the clock.
And, of course, the majority of people--even those with an extra $10k on hand--don't buy Rolexes. They're mostly for people with too much money on hand.
There is virtually no prestige in owning a CD, however. A wall-full of CDs might look impressive, but the normal reaction will be, "Wow, you're insane!" rather than "Wow, you enjoy the finer things in life." Likewise, a decent quality MP3 is of adequate quality that *most* people can't tell the difference. Of course there IS a difference, but most people listening to pop music will be satisfied with 128bit MP3, the vast majority with 192, and only a few will be able to tell the difference if you give them 256bit MP3. Of course, orchestra and symphonic music is a possible exception and may need 320bits to be acceptable.
The point is, you can't compare a luxury good (Rolex) that is bought by an insanely small percentage of the population and say, "Well, people buy Rolexes, why won't they buy CDs?" They are two entirely different markets with entirely different markets.
Slashdot Mirror
That said, I've migrated completely to Linux on my desktop and I'm browsing now in Linux/Mozilla. But I still have to support some MS projects so I can't go to Linux on the laptop just yet--although I'm planning on buying a new HD for the laptop and going dual-boot on it so I can use Linux 90% of the time and just boot XP when I need to maintain something. As long as I can copy XP onto the new HD without having to go through product activation--something I completely refuse to do.
Here you have a blind person that's taking legal action to obtain something that not everyone has anyway--blind or not.
As soon as 100% of the population has access to the web AND a significant percentage of commerce is conducted via the web this might make sense. But while tens of millions of U.S. citizens don't have access to this medium and only a few percent (?) of the economy is based on the medium, this lawsuit is absurd.
Have you checked you weblogs? How many hits do you get with IE4 browsers?
It's not jealousy. For it to be jealousy assumes I would charge $100 for 2 minutes of work if I could.
It'sbeing dissatisfied because you know the real cost of the service and know the real effort involved and can't reconcile that with what is being charged. A better example would be a locksmith being locked out of his own house with his tools IN the house and having to pay the mark-up.
You can have a lot of fun speculating about the price you'd like to pay. But that's not the economic reality
The thing is, it IS economic reality. That's why the prices of certs is now $49/year with the competition instead of $400+/year with Verisign. If there had been true competition and the price was $400/year that'd be one thing. The fact the price seemed insanely high and then the price drops by an order of magnitude in one year when competition is available simply proves the fact that they were ripping people off.
One thing is an honest return on investment. One thing is a competitive price. Another thing entirely is monopolistic pricing. And, yes, people do have a right to piss and moan when they are being unfairly gouged by a monopolistic company.
Also, I'm happy that $400 sounds like pocket change to you. There are MANY of us that run small business (i.e., just me, myself, and I) where the difference between $400/year and $49 is significant. Perhaps it's "only" pocket change to you, but it's a big difference for those of us that are slowly inching ahead in our business and don't want to pay absurd prices for trivial services. Not every secure SSL website is making millions per year with a staff and and accounting department to write that $400 check...
It's not necessarily a useful service, but it might be a necessary one.
If paying $400 per annum means that I get $401 additional contribution to my bottom line each year, it's made me money, and I'm doing it, and not complaining
That's silly. Sure, you spent $400 and made $401. That's a 0.25% ROI. Of course, the hope is that you make more than $401.
Even so, the fact that you earned more than you spent doesn't automatically translate into a fair or worthwhile service. If I get locked out of my house, anything that costs less than replacing a broken window makes financial sense. That doesn't mean I should feel good about a keysmith charging me $100 for 2 minutes at my door. Sure, it makes more sense than breaking a window to get in, but that doesn't mean I'm not getting ripped off.
The fact is that the SSL certificate authorities do little or not work. We pay them money because users will get a nasty certificate warning if we don't. That's it. Sure, I make money by paying them and that's the only reason anyone would ever do it. But that doesn't change the fact they are ripping you off by charging you an insane amount of money for no work on their side.
Certificates really ought to cost about the same as domain names... $9/year.
Building trust is an issue between the website and their potential customer. If the customer trusts the site, they're going to buy regardless of who signed the cert. If they don't trust the site, they're not going to buy regardless of who signed the cert.
Verisign and Thawte are, for obvious reasons, trying to promote the idea that their certificates cost more because users somehow trust their verification process more. That is BS. No-one cares because each individual person decides whether or not to trust the website in question.
In reality, all people want out of SSL is encryption. The decision to trust the business in question is always going to be the customer's and that decision will not be influenced by who signed the cert.
Do it. Don't think twice, and for God's sake don't give any money to Thawte/Verisign.
It's silly. I think very, very few people (non-geeks) even know that when they see the "little padlock" it means the company they are talking to is supposedly verified. I think everyone evaluates the business they are thinking about ordering from BEFORE they even go to the SSL stage.
Further, the verification process of Verisign/Thawte is easy to get around. It's easy to get a cert assigned by them if you're willing to lie/forge. On the other hand, it's a damn hassle if you want to do their process honestly.
In the end, a user won't know if the certificate was acquired by someone lying/forging or by a company honestly going through the hoops.
As you said, it comes down to Visa/Mastercard. All users want is encryption, they don't trust Verisign to say "yeah, they're for real." They'll make that evaluation themselves. The only reason anyone pays for an SSL certificate is so that users don't get "certificate warnings" when they access the site.
That pissed me off and got me shopping. Within 3 days I had my certs issued by InstantSSL. $49/year, no fuss.
I started an online store on my site in September 2001. At the time I couldn't find anything cheaper than Thawte. I went through all the paperwork hassles, process, etc. and eventually got one--though it was issued to me personally because they had weird requirements to prove my business existed (even though it was listed in DUNS, has been in business since 1993, etc.).
Last month it was time to renew. I wasn't looking forward to it but I figured I'd just be able to pay the bucks and be done. But NO, Thawte presented me with a whole new set of documentation that I had to provide. Never mind it was just to prove that I exist personally since the certificate was issued to me as a person, not the company. Never mind we had already gone through this the year before and nothing in the certificate was changing.
I got supremely pissed off and did some searching. Found InstantSSL by Comodo. The standard cert is $49/year with discounts available if you purchase more than 1 year at a time.
A little skeptically I signed up with them. I had my certificate the same day with no need to provide paperwork because their system was able to establish the existence of my company. And it was registered to my company (as it should be), not to me personally. Pleased with their service I purchased another certificate for another site I'd been meaning to get secured--since they already had certified my company that cert took about 2 hours to reecive.
I gave Thawte the 1-finger salute. I asked for a refund for the renewal I had initiated and purchased 2 years with InstantSSL for less than I was going to pay Thawte for 1 year. This is even better since Thawte is owned by Verisign, so by going to InstantSSL I effectively am free of Verisign. Always good.
I highly recommend InstantSSL. It's the Godaddy of SSL certs. :)
Until they ban RCA stereo plugs and/or 3.5 audio in/out on soundcards, it's useless. Even if only gurus can create the MP3s of the DRM-protected work, once it has been converted to MP3 it will be traded normally.
Oh, I agree. My keyboard and mouse are wired, although the main reason I don't use wireless is because I don't want to have to spend money on batteries for my mouse and keyboard.
I was talking more about networking of computing devices (PCs, laptops, Palms, etc.). Although printers is a good example of a non-CPU device that makes sense to be wireless.
with wireless access for things like palmtops & notebooks.
Again, I agree. My desktop, non-mobile server is connected to my LAN via a wired connection because there is no nenefit in a wireless connection. My two laptops, however, are wireless. I hope to someday get my Palm connected wirelessly... Is there an 802.11b adapter for the Palm yet?
if you have more than one computer in your home, the speed for file transfers doesn't even compare between wired & wireless.
I guess it depends on how often you transfer files between them. My LAN is mostly so that all the computers can access the Internet, and the DSL is still the bottleneck there, not the wireless link.
Now if you'll think a little harder you would understand that they are talking about WalMart offering CD promotions at under the cost TO WALMART, not under cost of production.
Duh.
I recently upgraded my network to be wireless so that my wife's and my laptops can move around the house. It works perfectly and the freedom is great.
I believe the future is wireless everything. The idea of just being in the same room and being able to sync my Palm, or out on the porch getting the latest data from the Internet is just too nice to go back to wires.
I doubt that, but the fact is "Minimum Advertised Price" is the minimum price that retailers sell the product for in return for help in advertising. If the practice goes away that just means WalMart has an incentive to sell the product as cheap as possible in order to attract more buyers to their store. As the article said, they even offered some CDs BELOW cost just to get people in the store to buy something else.
In any case, regardless of whether or not the recording industry benefited, the elimination of this practice SHOULD find its way to the consumer since the price increase was in the "last mile", with the retailer. And retailers will, once again, be competing with each other.
It's all academic, I get all my music from P2P and haven't bought a CD in like 4 years.
All it takes is one guru to break through and other gurus will know, and it will soon after become common knowledge--even for non-gurus.
As many have said and many will say, as long as music is audible it can be copied. Perhaps it goes from Analog->Digital->Analog, but it WILL be copied. Trying to avoid that reality is an excercise in futility and a waste of everyone's time and money.
But MS sees it as a way to solidy their monopoly and the RIAA sees it as a way to keep charging high prices. I personally think they will both be wrong.
What? If they want to see my paystubs to verify I'm not inflating my salary claim, I want to see THEIR paystub to make sure they're not underpaying me. To heck with that.
Truth is, I never ever disclose my salary history. That's completely irrelevant. Let's talk about the job you want me to do, how much I'm willing to accept, and whether that's acceptable to you. If I'm comfortable with the number and the company is comfortable with the number, my salary history is completely irrelevant.
The only reason they want salary history is to know exactly how much they can get away with offering you. That's BS. If they ask for that information, just put "N/A". If they don't call you back because you didn't give them that information, GOOD. It's not a company you want to work for. If they call you anyway then it is clear they don't really care and are willing to talk to you anyway. That tells you they are really interested in you.
What? If only those users who really knew how to use their operating system were "allowed" to have a computer, we'd be back in the early 1980's in terms of how many people have computers.
The whole selling point of Windows has always been that it's so simple that anyone can use it. They're market is the idiots that don't know any bettre. Given that they know their market, it is entirely reasonable to criticize MS for allowing an admin password to be blank. If a user tries that the install should politely say, "You must provide a password." How difficult is that?
I've used Eudora since 1995 in Windows. It integrates with nothing. I've also never received a virus via email--well, I've received them, but Eudora never installed one for me.
Slightly off-topic:
I'm in the process of switching entirely to Linux. I just got my local server switched over to Linux and am loving it. Mozilla, using XMMS for music, still sharing directories and a printer to the remaining Windows stations (the server was/is a file/print server for other Windows boxes), works great. The ONLY thing I'm missing is Eudora. I'm still receiving my email in Windows because I love Eudora.
Can someone recommend a good Gnome email client? The more similar to Eudora the better.
You: One might ask, then, why you think they put it in the same sentence? If it's as unrelated as you claim, surely it would have been written as a separate sentence?
They both involve matters that involve search and seizure, although I still believe they aren't tightly linked except for that they share that similarity.
Why in the 7th ammendment dos it read: "In suits at common law, where the value in controvery shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwised re-examined in any Court of the United States..." What does the right to a trial by jury and the fact that the conclusion cannot be re-examined have to do with each other? What does 20 dollars have to do with it? They're all related to trials, but there is no overwhelming link between the clause about 20 dollars, the clause about my right to a trial by jury, and the fact that the decision can't be re-examined.
Run-on sentences were very prevalent in old English. If you read the Constitution check out how many paragraphs consist of just one sentence. It is also interesting how many times the word "and" and "but" in the Constitution imply the beginning of a new sentence, although they are actually preceeded with a semicolon or comma.
The very purpose of a warrant is to authorize search or seizure. Are you arguing that the only time a warrant is necessary is when there is no probable cause?
No, I'm arguing that a warranty is necessary when there is no reason to believe that a crime is currently in-progress, but there is reason to believe that evidence of a crime will be obtained if permission (warrant) is granted to enter a location and search for that specific evidence.
I.e., if the police think the murder weapon for some crime is in my house, they need to convince a judge of their reasoning. If he agrees, the warrant is issued and they can search the specified location for that weapon. There is no probable cause that the crime is in-progress, but there presumably the police have provided the judge with a reasonable explanation of why they think they will find the murder weapon at my house.
How can people be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," and at the same time give the police the power to break down their door at any moment for the slightest flimsy excuse?
If the excuse was flimsy, sue the police department or the officers involved. Sue the person that intentionally gave a false tip.
I also don't trust my neighbors to sic the cops on me only when I'm beating my wife, and not when they have some other personal vendetta against me. The neighbor claiming that I'm beating my wife is not sufficient as probable cause if there is no other evidence.
I'd say that someone reporting a beating in-progress is sufficient reason for the police to act. If they find out that it was a lie, then they should haul your neighbor with a vendetta to jail for filing a false report.
It is clear that historically it was expected that people defend themselves against criminals, using force as necessary. If you expect the police to do it for you, prepare to be disappointed, and quite possibly dead.
I fully support the right to bear arms. I even support the right to carried concealed weapons. If 1 out of 4 citizens carried concealed weapons I think current crime would go down; on the other hand, I can't ignore the fact that road rage could become more deadly if everyone carried guns.
This isn't the wild west. While I support the right to bear arms, I also recognize that many people don't want to bear arms. These people deserve to be secure as well and the police provide that protection. Sure, someone can break in and kill me before the police arrive. Those of us that don't have weapons in the house evaluate the risks. But the great majority of those that don't carry arms get through life without being physyically threatened by either crminals or the police. If you are harassed by either some neighbor or the police it is almost always because you've pissed someone off--and you, too, should evaluate the risks of pissing anyone off, be it a police, neighbor, drug dealer, or unknown stranger who many be any of the above. Everything has consequences, and it really isn't that hard to get along with everybody.
Sure, the police should respect your rights. But at the same time, is there any particular reason you should taunt someone in such away that provokes them to violate your rights?
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if someone calls the police and reports that she sees their neighbor beating his wife that the police can't act on that until a judge grants a warrant? In such a scenario the police would just be garbage collectors, documenting crimes that have already been permitted.
I am not a Constitutional scholar but I read that text as two separate points:
1. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
This talks about the right of the person against unreasonable search and seisure.
2. and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This talks about something not happening in real-time, and indicates the requirements for issuing a warrant. I don't see this second part being conditions on the police to act in real-time, as long as they can show that they acted reasonably based on what they considered a reasonable and reliable belief of a crime in progress. If they didn't, bad cops, and they need to be sued.
I really don't think the founding fathers had an impotent police force in mind that were not able to act on crimes in-progress. That itself enters into the realm of "unreasonable."
While this is a valid explanation of the relative pricing from a business standpoint, it doesn't mean squat to the consumer who has to decide how to spend $20.
Whenever someone at some company gives me justifications or reasons why they can't give me the service I deserve or paid for my answer is quite simple: "Your internal company problems are not MY problems, they're yours. You deal with your internal problems, but in the meantime solve the problem you have right now with the consumer--me!"
In this case, my heart bleeds for the RIAA (sarcasm), but I really don't care what their costs of business are, nor do I care if their business model is broken. As a consumer I see a $15 DVD for a movie I thought was fun when I saw it, or I see a $20 CD that might have one good song, maybe. Where do you think I'm going to spend my money?
Fact is, the DVD vs. CD comparison is a VERY valid comparison from a consumer standpoint. The DVD vs. CD decision is one that is made probably thousands of times per day by consumers around the world. It just turns out the business model of the movie industry is more profitable than that of the RIAA. Tough luck.
Chris: "You're gullible, Mitch. I'm such an asshole."
Laslo: "I understand how you feel, Chris, and you're right..."
(Some) people buy Rolexes because of the prestige of owning one. There is also an arguable difference in visible quality, although the Rolexes of so many people I know have broken down and needed repair that even the quality issue is debatable in terms of the inner workings of the clock.
And, of course, the majority of people--even those with an extra $10k on hand--don't buy Rolexes. They're mostly for people with too much money on hand.
There is virtually no prestige in owning a CD, however. A wall-full of CDs might look impressive, but the normal reaction will be, "Wow, you're insane!" rather than "Wow, you enjoy the finer things in life." Likewise, a decent quality MP3 is of adequate quality that *most* people can't tell the difference. Of course there IS a difference, but most people listening to pop music will be satisfied with 128bit MP3, the vast majority with 192, and only a few will be able to tell the difference if you give them 256bit MP3. Of course, orchestra and symphonic music is a possible exception and may need 320bits to be acceptable.
The point is, you can't compare a luxury good (Rolex) that is bought by an insanely small percentage of the population and say, "Well, people buy Rolexes, why won't they buy CDs?" They are two entirely different markets with entirely different markets.