So what we have here is an individual claiming his rights to a.com(mercial) address which he himself claims not to be using commercially ?
Shouldn't a commercial company like Unicom have the rights to the Unicom.com address, rather that an individual exploiting the weak control of.com addresses? As far as I'm concerned, he is a squatter in some sense. Or should we change the meaning of.com to.common ?
And with a new top domain like.biz, one has to ask whether that will be under better control than.com. Or will.com-owners claim ownership on.biz domains with the argument that "customers" shouldn't be confused when visiting both unicom.biz and unicom.com ?
The next you know, companies are gonna have policies that forbid browsing to the company websites. So instead of having software/hardware firewalls, they will only have legal firewalls, suing each and every person breaking their policy.
Oh yeah, I have the feeling that we will see a lot of Legal Firewalls in the future.
I just wonder how anyone can even refer to this Web Policy with a straig face...
Changing the price of goods you sell to reflect your actual cost for it is not exactly unique.
In the Consumer Packaged Goods (soda, beer, candy, cereal, ice cream etc) the price is low and a great deal of the cost for it is advertising and distribution. Here, prices reflect the customers will to pay; at the supermarket people choose the cheapest, at the airport they don't have much choice but to pay up.
For more expensive and high-tech comsumer products, the price reflect the current market price of components and stock levels. This is how the automobile business work, for instance. Ever seen a factory incentive ? Ever seen a silly rebate att Dell.com ? They already do this, but this new initiative will be more real-time (as if real-time is a relative concept...) instead of using some weekly average as the base for the price.
In the enterprise world, this has been the pricing model for a long time. Most large software applications and sometimes even hardware (IBM, Digital etc) cannot be bought, only rented. Some call it license fee, but you still pay it every year so it's basically rent. In addition to this, the vendor charge you for support.
The reason for this is of course that with software it doesn't cost you more to build 1,000,000 instances than the first one. But you still want a steady and predictable revenue for years to come. SAP, Oracle, Siebel, everyone charges this way. Also, customer seem to prefer this way, since it makes their initial investment smaller.
When it comes to pulling the plug after 3 years, this also is the case with enterprise software. It is called "de-supporting", which means that the customer needs to upgrade to a newer version (for a fee) in order to receive the support he's paying for. Typically vendors support their product 3 versions back, and come with a major release every 2 years or so.
What MS is doing is just moving their price model to the one that the major players on the large systems market are using. They can probably get the companies to pay for this, since most companies write off and replace their PC every 3 years. When it comes to people using PCs at home, I guess it'll be tougher, but perhaps MS figures people switch their system about that often.
Jxta will probably be an important part of Sun One (Open Net Environment). One is Sun's response to Microsoft's Net-initative.
It's a bit strange that Sun goes from being the great advocate of fat servers and thin clients to this peer-to-peer protocol. But I guess the popularity of Napster gave them a vision of what might come, so why not embrace it.
I'm sure we'll see alot more about Net vs. One in the news from now on...
Big Blue isn't in the Linux business for ideological reasons or because they believe in open source. It's - of course - about money. In this case, it's a about Microsoft's money. By advocating Linux, they hope to take away revenue from Microsoft, who's a fierce competitor in the business software sector. It's not about what's running our cheap computers at home, it's about the big business contracts and about being the largest software vendor, and therefore setting the standards. IBM can never beat Microsoft if they sell a copy of WinXP or whatever with every license they sell of their own software. It's all about keeping a few bucks here and there out of Bill's pockets.
This is exactly what Sun did with StarOffice; giving away an alternative to Microsoft's perhaps most profitable product, Office. Every $ kept away from Microsoft is a dollar not spent on advertising, research and lawsuits against Sun and its initiatives.
This is much like how spies and secret agents and whathaveyou used to have microdots in letters etc. The microdot could be just anything: the dot over an "i" or at the end of a sentence. When under a microscope, you see an entire message or image or map or whatever.
Not only do you hide the secret information, but you do it in a way that it doesn't look suspicous. That makes it so much harder for anyone trying to compromise you, doesn't it ?
It's easy to make fun of the way that media sometime cover the issues of encryption. They sometimes do exaggerate and usually get some or all of the facts wrong and whathaveyou.
But nevertheless, it is a real problem that do require more that just a few sweeping opinionated comments on/. Criminals are getting geared up on the latest technology, and society will suffer if nothing is done. Yes, society means me, you and your mom.
Already we can see how criminal organizations are using international banks and money transfers to and from them for money laundering. The more they can act anonymously, the more they can get away with and that makes at least me mad.
The rising of the sea level when our climate is getting warmer, is almost exclusively due to the expansion of water when the temperature rises .
The effect from the melting ice at the north and the south pole can be neglected. They stand for extremely small amounts of water, compared to the oceans themselves.
Between zero C and +4 C, water gets more dense, but after that, it expands.
Slashdot Mirror
So what we have here is an individual claiming his rights to a .com(mercial) address which he himself claims not to be using commercially ?
.com addresses? As far as I'm concerned, he is a squatter in some sense. Or should we change the meaning of .com to .common ?
.biz, one has to ask whether that will be under better control than .com. Or will .com-owners claim ownership on .biz domains with the argument that "customers" shouldn't be confused when visiting both unicom.biz and unicom.com ?
Shouldn't a commercial company like Unicom have the rights to the Unicom.com address, rather that an individual exploiting the weak control of
And with a new top domain like
Case closed.
...wouldn't he be playing himself ?
The next you know, companies are gonna have policies that forbid browsing to the company websites. So instead of having software/hardware firewalls, they will only have legal firewalls, suing each and every person breaking their policy.
Oh yeah, I have the feeling that we will see a lot of Legal Firewalls in the future.
I just wonder how anyone can even refer to this Web Policy with a straig face...
...when they come out with a Jar-Jar Binks mask.
In the Consumer Packaged Goods (soda, beer, candy, cereal, ice cream etc) the price is low and a great deal of the cost for it is advertising and distribution. Here, prices reflect the customers will to pay; at the supermarket people choose the cheapest, at the airport they don't have much choice but to pay up.
For more expensive and high-tech comsumer products, the price reflect the current market price of components and stock levels. This is how the automobile business work, for instance. Ever seen a factory incentive ? Ever seen a silly rebate att Dell.com ? They already do this, but this new initiative will be more real-time (as if real-time is a relative concept...) instead of using some weekly average as the base for the price.
The reason for this is of course that with software it doesn't cost you more to build 1,000,000 instances than the first one. But you still want a steady and predictable revenue for years to come. SAP, Oracle, Siebel, everyone charges this way. Also, customer seem to prefer this way, since it makes their initial investment smaller.
When it comes to pulling the plug after 3 years, this also is the case with enterprise software. It is called "de-supporting", which means that the customer needs to upgrade to a newer version (for a fee) in order to receive the support he's paying for. Typically vendors support their product 3 versions back, and come with a major release every 2 years or so.
What MS is doing is just moving their price model to the one that the major players on the large systems market are using. They can probably get the companies to pay for this, since most companies write off and replace their PC every 3 years. When it comes to people using PCs at home, I guess it'll be tougher, but perhaps MS figures people switch their system about that often.
It's a bit strange that Sun goes from being the great advocate of fat servers and thin clients to this peer-to-peer protocol. But I guess the popularity of Napster gave them a vision of what might come, so why not embrace it.
I'm sure we'll see alot more about Net vs. One in the news from now on...
Not only do you hide the secret information, but you do it in a way that it doesn't look suspicous. That makes it so much harder for anyone trying to compromise you, doesn't it ?
But nevertheless, it is a real problem that do require more that just a few sweeping opinionated comments on /. Criminals are getting geared up on the latest technology, and society will suffer if nothing is done. Yes, society means me, you and your mom.
Already we can see how criminal organizations are using international banks and money transfers to and from them for money laundering. The more they can act anonymously, the more they can get away with and that makes at least me mad.
The rising of the sea level when our climate is getting warmer, is almost exclusively due to the expansion of water when the temperature rises .
The effect from the melting ice at the north and the south pole can be neglected. They stand for extremely small amounts of water, compared to the oceans themselves. Between zero C and +4 C, water gets more dense, but after that, it expands.