There are a variety of solutions to the technical problems that arise from wide-ranging internet access by the public. Those of us who were using the net in the late '80s recall sending and recieving email, unincombered by large volumes of spam. As internet usage gained popularity, so to did unacceptable practices undertaken by businesses and indeviduals.
SPAM is as much a social problem as a technical problem. Blackhole lists attempt to solve the social aspects of the problem with a technical solution - the idea being that the sender of spam is shunned and ignored when trying to communicate. I don't have all the answers but solutions like Vipul's Razor seem a bit more like technical solutions to the technical aspects of the problem.
Likewise, domain registration operates much like the wild west. He who hets there first, gets the loot. I was attempting to register an expiring domain at one point. It had expired 90 days previous and still had not been released by Verisign. I consulted my perfered domain registrar, who's generally vary helpful staff gave me this wild west analogy and suggested that my only recourse was to lodge a complaint with ICANN. We all know how helpful ICANN can be...
Any new technology opens up oportunities for baser elements of human nature to bear their collective ugly head. Over time the practices will iron themselves out and until then people like the lawyer, author if this article will probably have to suffer unless they want to contribute a positive solution. The Internet will eventually grow out indulging these childish behaviors but until then, we can only do what's best to protect ourselves from the poor choices of others.
--CTH
The Beauty of Enlightened Self-Interest
on
RIAA Headway Dwindling
·
· Score: 4, Informative
It's great to see this coalition fighting the RIAA and MPAA, but make no mistake about it. Most of these coalition members are acting entirely out of enlightened self-interest rather than fighting the good fight on behalf of internet users. The article is vary clear about this but it bears repeating:
"What the RIAA is really seeking, at the end of the day, is to shift the burden of copyright enforcement from its own members--who apparently would prefer not to alienate potential customers by suing them outright--to an ISP that does nothing more than provide an Internet connection to the customer," the brief says.
[...]
In July, the RIAA invoked the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to force Verizon to turn over the identity of a Kazaa subscriber. Verizon opposed the request, telling a federal district court in Washington that the DMCA's turbocharged subpoena process does not cover people who are participating in a peer-to-peer network like Kazaa.
The fact that these companies are acting together to protect their own interests is actually a good thing in that their interests actually do coincide with those of the consumer. This type of synergy is quite rare and should be supported by consumers while they continue to recognize the corporate motives behind it.
It's good to see practical web services leveraged through Open Source initiatives. Certainly, this is not unexpected, but it's good to see meacurable results, given the unbelievable type we've been subjected to over the past several years.
Positive results of OSS efforts are always gradifying to see.
A strand of hair means definate prof pf progress. Remember when they used to talk about how many of something they could fit on the head of a pin? A strand of hair is real progress, after all, how many strands of human hair can fit on the head of a pin?
One of the first paragraphs of this review is perhaps the most telling:
Recent media infatuation with the blogging effect seems to be overwhelming. It seems that newspaper journalists have just discovered the ability to post and comment messages on the Internet, while most of the computer aficionados and heavy Internet users just shrug their shoulders when told about personal Web journals that link to other articles on the Web.
When considering the value of Blogging, you must see it for what it is. It's the natural extension of the 'Links Page' that every personal website has and were so prevelent even in the early days of the web in 1994 and 1995, that pages of personal bookmarks, outnumbered pages of actual meaningful content. That having been said, there are two distinct types of blogs. Those which simply act to point out a linked source of content the author finds to be of interest, and those which offer some sort of online punditry. Both types are of value in their own right, but blog readers will most likely favor one or the other type. Personally, I maintain a blogger based page for the simple purpose of having a portable bookmarking mechanism for my owwn convenience, since the demize of most of those.com ventures that sought to ptovide such a service supported by advertising.
With repect to this book, I would have to agree with the reviewer. Who would buy it? If you are familier with blogging, then you know what you need to know. If you are not, then you're more likely to buy a book entitled 'Websites for Beginners' or something. This book seems to be searching for a market where there most likely is none.
The most powerful features of Apache based sites aren't features of Apache but of 3rd party modules. PHP, mod_perl, mod_dav, mod_throttle and even Microsoft Frontpage modules contribute significantly to the appeal of apache. There is an excellant Report on Apache Module Popularity by SecuritySpace.com. In considering this report, you should notice the month over month growth in the usage of modulees which have not yet been ported to Apache 2. The developers of these modules will most likely respond to customer demands for support of apache 2, which is dependant of the Apache Software Foundation's ability to convince customers of the benefits of upgrading to Apache 2. In this respect the marketing of Open Source Software mimics the marketing of treditional commercial software. Let's hope they don't adome the strategy of some commercial software vendors by simply refusing to provide security fixes or updates to Apache 1.3.x when needed.This would certainly outrage Apache users, but in the case of Open Source would have the secondary effect of promoting forking of the codebase. On the bright side customers do have a recourse in the case of Open Source, where, they're left twisting in the wind in the case of commercial products.
There will be many more of these cases where those who have attempted to enforce the DMCA against companies and indeviduals they find to be a threat to their business, will find themselves on the recieving end of these suits.
Such are the perils of ill concieved and internally inconsistant legislation like the DMCA. Making such drastic changes to the tenets of copyright and fair use, established 200 years ago, is frought with risks. I predict there will be a great many of these suits that victimize the vary companies who supported the legislation as it passed through congress, for the simple reason that for the past three decades, products have been developed based on the previously existing standards of copyright and fair use, and there's no grandfathering clause to speak of in the DMCA.
Eventually the quantity of these suits will diminish, as products based on the old standards are removed from distribution and we become acustomed to the slower creative development and weakened artistic and technical growth dictated by the new intellectual property standards we have imposed on ourselves.
The only remaining question is: Are these new standards in the best interest of the majority?
If so, we will fine a new ballance in our creative and technological endevours. If not, the law must be repealed and a more approprite piece of legislation developed.
It boggles the mind that so many administrators unintentionally leave their wireless networks open and available to anyone willing to make a little effort (and some cases, no effort at all). Certainly, wardrivers who spend time attempting to access secured networks need to consider their actions carefully, but what constitutes a secured network? There are plenty of foolish administrators out there who take no measures at all to secure their networks but of those who do, and have their networks authorized by 'unauthorized' persons; what truly constitutes security? Certainly there is a level of incompetence in network security where the person gaining unauthorised access can simply claim(when acused of accessing a secured network illegally) "The network was not secured". There has to be some remedial security standard below which (assumin it would otherwise be a crime to access a particular secured network) no crime would have been committed.
We've seen this in every old-economy industry where technology has been introduced. Most recently in the music industry; there are only two possible outcomes. Either the business models and practiced witin the industry change to take advantage of the new technology, or through legislation and legal maneuvering, industry trade organizations act to preserve the status quo, thereby damaging the economic efficiency of the market, and reducing the overall customer utility of their products. This latter strategy is doomed to failure in the long term, but does protect the interests of the cuttent industry players, at least for the one generation it will take for the leaders of these organizations to retire and move on.
In short, the movie industry is destined for great termoil, but the result will be a more efficient marketplace offering products of greater customer utility. While the requirements for creation and delivery of these products is not the same as those of the previous generation, there are plenty of service sector opportunities around every new technology. The players must simply be fleible enough to adapt and identify a service requirement of the new technology, which is compatible with that company's earlier business.
It will be a painful transition but we will all be better for it.
It's good to see this issue finally resolved, but this isn't the limit of the sleeziness of AT&T et al. Equally as disturbing as the phone lease charges addressed in this suit, is the ongoing bilking of cutomers who don't keep up on service plans and pricing opportunities. Many elderly customers (including, my grandparents, as I duscovered a few years back) are still recieving service at AT&T's base rates, from the late '70s, without the advantage of any of the pricing plans currently available upon request from all long distance carriers. Certainly the argument that it is the customer's responsibility to investigate pricing opportunities, is not without weight, but there are AT&T customers still recieving Pro Watts service, which in my case I discovered, then I tried to dial an 888 number from my grand parents redidence. Upon review of their bill, and with one 5 minute phone call, their bill was reduced by almost 70%, but the carriers are under no oblication to move customers to any particular rate plan at any time, and because the customer demographic which includes senior-citizens does not demonstrate elasticity in their telephone calling patterns, such that regardless of pricing, they will likely make the same amount of calls; there is no incentive on the part of carriers to offer them any more modern pricing plans. This is particularly interesting because over the past 20 years, it has been common opinion within the telecom industry that as market pressures drive pricing for basic calling services down, that refenue differential will be recouped through the pricision of more advanced services such as caller-ID, 3-way calling, distinctive ring, and so on.
At some point it will no longer be cost effective to treat their customer base in these two wildly divergent ways, and telecom carriers will be forced to bring their pricing into allignment elderly customers, althoufh this will have the down side of pringing down on these customers, that deluge of telemarketing calls from competing providers - a joy to whih they have been to some degree spared thus far.
The problems asociated with CPU cooling can't be solved by spraying the chip. Although it would be neat to have a robot running around monitoring systems in a datacenter, It seems unlikely that spraying overheating CPUs is a wasted effort. Perhaps a robot that answers the helpdesk phone and insults the users. Why pay a Bastard Operator From Hell when you could have a robot, or even simple IVR system that serves the same purpose. And you'd have a really cool Tape Robot to handle your system backups.
I found the RIAA background on their appeal to be quite amusing. It says in part:
The Librarian of Congress was duped by Yahoo!'s self-serving testimony in the CARP. Yahoo testified in the CARP for one reason, and one reason only -- to lower the rate that would be paid for Internet-only transmissions.
No Kidding! I can't imagine why the Yahoo testimony would act to advance their own self-interest...! I have to agree with the RIAA that CLEARLY the rates are too low because there are still a few internet radio companies in business. If that doesn't PROVE the RIAA isn't takind enough money off them, I don't know what would.
The Solution:
The RIAA was created to insure that artists were compensated for their work in a time when such compensation of indevidual artists for their work, would have otherwise been impossible. Times have changed. Artists no longer need the RIAA, or for that matter ASCAP or BMI but broadcasters need to provide the artists an alternative. I'm no fan of direct mail marketing but they have a trade association which acts to implement self governance where otherwise there would be legislation governing the industry.
In the case of the Recording and broadcast industry, a private organization has stepped into that governmental role, and through extensive lobying efforts, actually has legislation on the books that backs their esentually userous behavior. IANAL, but I assume this legisltaion doesn't name the RIAA specifically, instead requiring that through some means, the artists must be compensated for their work. It follows that a new organisation could be established that managed escrow accounts for ALL artists, into which royalties would be paid by broadcasters, in an ammount a little more than they are paid by the RIAA, on a per broadcast basis. The accounts would be structured such that ONLY THE ARTISTS would have access to the funds. Any artists wishing to gain access to these funds would simply have to provide appropriate identification as the performer for which the funds were being held, then agree that these funds were being paid as appropriate royalties for the rebroadcast of their music by the broadcaster-members of the organization. Certainly issues atround copyright onership of the music (where in the eample it is assumed the artist owns the copyright to their music) would have to be addressed, but the point is simple. The RIAA keeps a large percentage of the funds they collect, supposedly, to dispurse to artists. Certainly a modern organization, using modern technologies, and without all the baggage of the RIAA would be able to handle this situation in a more efficient manner.
While I've never been a fan of Microsoft's business practices, you have to recognize that from a business standpoint (ignoring for the moment, the privacy impacts) they're quite shrewd. Some of the statements in their privacy policy included:
Microsoft's Passport privacy policies included statements such as, "Passport achieves a high level of Web Security by using technologies and systems designed to prevent unauthorized access to your personal information" and "Your Passport is protected by powerful online security and a strict privacy policy."
All of which were as far as I can tell, sufficiently vague as to not constitute any specific claim to a particular defined level of privacy or to the technical sophistication of secutity techniques being employed by the Passport service. While we can all complain about the slap on the wrist being dolled out here, there probably wasn't much the FTC could have done here. Certainly, regarding the collection of information not disclosed in the privacy policy (storage of login history) (IANAL, but...) indevidual consumer may have claims against Microsoft. I'm guessing that this settlement was more about getting EPIC, EFF, and the other privacy advocates to stop attacking Passport, than it was about preventing future litigation my indeviduals though.
Throuhout this case, I've been most impressed ith the coalition that was formed between the plaintiff organizations. It's reasuring to see such coalitions formed in support of issues where until recently it seemed a losing battle was being valiently fought by a few small groups with no unifying structure arounmd them. Regardless of how meager this victory seems, it's important that the issue was addressed in that it galvanized these organizations and brought them together in a way we have rately seen thus far. I hope we see these organizations continueto work closely in the future.
So it's a cliche, but work should be it's own reward. This is not to say 'You should be thankful you have a job at all' but rather, if you don't enjoy the work you're doing, go find something you do enjoy. Grantes this isn't the best economy in which to follow such advice, but still, It's nice to see a few people who have found jobs that they truly enjoy and pursue that work regardless of how limited the other benefits are.
I can see it now. "Officer, It's not my fault. Microsoft sold me an unsafe product. If it were safe, my car wouldn't have stalled in the middle of the inteterstate."
In all seriousness though, as the promotion of WIndows for Embedded Devices continues, these sorts of safety issues will need to be evaluated vary carefully. The software industry - the only industry in which selling defective products has almost no consequences - will have to take greater responsibility for bugs and instabilities in their products. As the stakes go up to the point where their products are directly responsible for human lives, a new approach to security and reliability will be needed. Among other things, Microsoft will need to alter it's position oposing full disclosure of security vulterabilities.
Cars running Windows are one thing but regardless of what steps are taken, it'll be many years before I'll be comfortable being attached to a heart bypass machine running MS Windows for Embedded Devices.
It's important to remember that this case has been taken ob by 'class action specialists' at a large well known law firm. Aturneys in class action suits usually take them on to line their own pockets, rather than for the greater good, so I fully expect they will be looking for a financial settlement, rather than amy more meaningful remedy. We're not talking about EFF or ACLU lawyers here. This case is esentially being brought by high class ambulence chasers. I wouldn't be suprised if we are extremely dissatisfied with the resolution to this case, regardless of who wins.
Careful reading will indicate the discussion is of providers of wireless network access. As for offering pieces of the spectrum, that's the domain of the FCC, but is not the focus of this discussion.
While there is no technical violation of the GPL here, there is a deterrent to contributing to OSS projects, as you say, with the knowledge that your software will be subverted in this way.
On the other hand, all we're really talking about is filesystem layouts and perhaps makefile adjustments. The actions of the UnitedLinux group will simply cause developers to state that their software is explicitly NOT CERTIFIED (by the developers) for use on UnitedLinux, which would be particularly damaging to the distro companies, if enough large projects made this statement. Realistically though, these companies will come to their senses. There's no valid reason to anger developers in this way, because there are enough steps the developers could take to prevent use of their software on any particular distribution.
In not, this will be a big win for Microsoft, as large numbers of developers abandon OSS projects in favor of other hobbies.
OSS is inherently a collaborative effort. Microsoft has historically taken a confrontational stance in the marketplace to the point where they have angered their competitors to such a degree that they are unlikely to be able to play in a collaborative enviroment where that collaboration is based on anything other than the threat of the alternative confrontation which their partners in collaboration would otherwise face.
This historical lesson learned by Microsoft's competitors over the first 15 years of Microsoft's existance, has poisoned the waters and will effect any relationships Microsoft forges in the marketplace for many years into the future.
This situation nessecerily precludes the type of collaboration required for successful OSS development, so Microsoft can not reasonably take any position other than the one they have thus far, without creating an enviroment where they will have excluded themselves from the marketplace through their own actions.
It's almost sad, but this is the current condition of Microsoft in the software industry, regardless of whether anyone could convince them of the error of their ways.
Like all resources, it will be offered at little or no cost until it becomes sufficiently limited, at which point the cost to utilize the resource will increase, and provision of the service will become proffitable, so we will see the end of community wireless networks, and the re-emergence of for-proffit networks, where access is restricted and the frequencies used will only be available to subscribers.
If the recent internet Libel case goes to verdict, it may impact the power of current anti-spam laws as well. If it turns out that people can be sued for libel in the jurisdiction where internet content is being viewed, it then follows that spammers can be sued for breakage of anti-spam laws in the jurisdiction where the spam is recieved. Only time will tell how this will paly out but there is a silver lining to everythnig, if you look hard enough.
Personally I was never in favor of RealNames because they represented a polution of data integrity with regard to source material agailable on the net, but I my opposition was based on my concern that the business would success in their stated goal and cause this damange. I would not be concerned if the company was inheredtly doomed to failure.
It's disappointing that Microsoft weilds such power that they can, with a single business decision, cause the ruin of a company, however it's good to see that Microsoft's own potentially highly successful forray into the internet-as-a-platform space is not gaining the full support of the company. This division within the company allows other providers to keep their foot in the door, and particularly may be the saving grace of JAVA. Only time will tell.
Most lemmon laws state that products sold to customers must be of a certain minimum quality. This would not impact OSS development projects because they do not sell products or product licenses (live treditional software vendors do). Most OSS organizations that seek to proffit directly from the software being written, tend to sell support contracts. A typical example of this is MySQL AB. It's reasonable to assume that any software lemmon law would contain language similar to lemmon laws relating to other products. This language is usually limited to products sold to a customer, so, again, OSS development activities would not be affected, however anyone seeking to sell softare - typically those with business models tied to BSD style licenses - will probably be impacted and will have to shift to the service and support model of outfits like Redhat. Zealots like Stallman and ESR whould be thrilled by this.
On the other hand the Microsoft lobying machine should be in full force, makind the entirely inane argument that "If this legislation is going to screw us over it should screw over OSS as well". We can only hope that legislators will be able to see through such arguments.
I've been trying to dig up the original source for some time. I read it in an AP Wire story carried in a local paper in CT in the summer of 1994 (I think). Aparently the original source was a Harbard Business School research paper, although I have not had the opportunity to search it out. I intend to when time allows. It really is a vary interesting and streight-forward concept that he was pointing out.
It's a basic principle of business - and also, strangely, con artists - you're better off taking a little off your customer/mark over a long period, maintaining a positive relationship for an extended period, rather than taking them for all their worth once and never hearing from them again. You want them coming back, asking for the privilege of handing you more money.
In the business world this is of course, achieved through providing quality products at a fair price acompanied by good customer service.
In a con game, this is achieved through convincing your mark that you are acting in his best interest, and if that deesn't work you can always try threats and extortion.
Microsoft seems to have made a business decision that it is more cost effective to derive funds through threats and extortion rather than by providing a quality product. Before you dismiss this as being an overbroad accusation, consider the following.
In the early 1990s Steve Balmer was quoted as saying that "Software Piracy is a critical part of Microsoft's Business", the reasoning being that if those who couldn't afford Microsoft products, pirated them and their use of the software increased their efficiency in business and otherwise, they would become more profitable both personally and in business and be able to afford to pay for upgrades to the software, so Microsoft would proffit through a somewhat obscure customer aquisition technique.
In the Mid 1990s the BSA began to take major steps to try and curb software piracy through various threats and lobying for new anti-piracy legislation.
Then, in the late 1990s and now, Microsoft has become dissatisfied with collecting from those who illegally use their software. Now they are seeking out organizations who use their software legally, and have always acted in good faith, singling them out, causing them expense and time which they can not afford, above and beyond that which they have already budgeted to legally purchase the software in question.
Is it really a suprise that these faithful customers are now objecting and seeking other alternatives? No. I think not.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a variety of solutions to the technical problems that arise from wide-ranging internet access by the public. Those of us who were using the net in the late '80s recall sending and recieving email, unincombered by large volumes of spam. As internet usage gained popularity, so to did unacceptable practices undertaken by businesses and indeviduals.
SPAM is as much a social problem as a technical problem. Blackhole lists attempt to solve the social aspects of the problem with a technical solution - the idea being that the sender of spam is shunned and ignored when trying to communicate. I don't have all the answers but solutions like Vipul's Razor seem a bit more like technical solutions to the technical aspects of the problem.
Likewise, domain registration operates much like the wild west. He who hets there first, gets the loot. I was attempting to register an expiring domain at one point. It had expired 90 days previous and still had not been released by Verisign. I consulted my perfered domain registrar, who's generally vary helpful staff gave me this wild west analogy and suggested that my only recourse was to lodge a complaint with ICANN. We all know how helpful ICANN can be...
Any new technology opens up oportunities for baser elements of human nature to bear their collective ugly head. Over time the practices will iron themselves out and until then people like the lawyer, author if this article will probably have to suffer unless they want to contribute a positive solution. The Internet will eventually grow out indulging these childish behaviors but until then, we can only do what's best to protect ourselves from the poor choices of others.
--CTH
It's good to see practical web services leveraged through Open Source initiatives. Certainly, this is not unexpected, but it's good to see meacurable results, given the unbelievable type we've been subjected to over the past several years.
Positive results of OSS efforts are always gradifying to see.
--CTH
A strand of hair means definate prof pf progress. Remember when they used to talk about how many of something they could fit on the head of a pin? A strand of hair is real progress, after all, how many strands of human hair can fit on the head of a pin?
--CTH
With repect to this book, I would have to agree with the reviewer. Who would buy it? If you are familier with blogging, then you know what you need to know. If you are not, then you're more likely to buy a book entitled 'Websites for Beginners' or something. This book seems to be searching for a market where there most likely is none.
--CTH
The most powerful features of Apache based sites aren't features of Apache but of 3rd party modules. PHP, mod_perl, mod_dav, mod_throttle and even Microsoft Frontpage modules contribute significantly to the appeal of apache. There is an excellant Report on Apache Module Popularity by SecuritySpace.com. In considering this report, you should notice the month over month growth in the usage of modulees which have not yet been ported to Apache 2. The developers of these modules will most likely respond to customer demands for support of apache 2, which is dependant of the Apache Software Foundation's ability to convince customers of the benefits of upgrading to Apache 2. In this respect the marketing of Open Source Software mimics the marketing of treditional commercial software. Let's hope they don't adome the strategy of some commercial software vendors by simply refusing to provide security fixes or updates to Apache 1.3.x when needed.This would certainly outrage Apache users, but in the case of Open Source would have the secondary effect of promoting forking of the codebase. On the bright side customers do have a recourse in the case of Open Source, where, they're left twisting in the wind in the case of commercial products.
--CTH
There will be many more of these cases where those who have attempted to enforce the DMCA against companies and indeviduals they find to be a threat to their business, will find themselves on the recieving end of these suits.
Such are the perils of ill concieved and internally inconsistant legislation like the DMCA. Making such drastic changes to the tenets of copyright and fair use, established 200 years ago, is frought with risks. I predict there will be a great many of these suits that victimize the vary companies who supported the legislation as it passed through congress, for the simple reason that for the past three decades, products have been developed based on the previously existing standards of copyright and fair use, and there's no grandfathering clause to speak of in the DMCA.
Eventually the quantity of these suits will diminish, as products based on the old standards are removed from distribution and we become acustomed to the slower creative development and weakened artistic and technical growth dictated by the new intellectual property standards we have imposed on ourselves.
The only remaining question is: Are these new standards in the best interest of the majority?
If so, we will fine a new ballance in our creative and technological endevours. If not, the law must be repealed and a more approprite piece of legislation developed.
--CTH
It boggles the mind that so many administrators unintentionally leave their wireless networks open and available to anyone willing to make a little effort (and some cases, no effort at all). Certainly, wardrivers who spend time attempting to access secured networks need to consider their actions carefully, but what constitutes a secured network? There are plenty of foolish administrators out there who take no measures at all to secure their networks but of those who do, and have their networks authorized by 'unauthorized' persons; what truly constitutes security? Certainly there is a level of incompetence in network security where the person gaining unauthorised access can simply claim(when acused of accessing a secured network illegally) "The network was not secured". There has to be some remedial security standard below which (assumin it would otherwise be a crime to access a particular secured network) no crime would have been committed.
--CTH
We've seen this in every old-economy industry where technology has been introduced. Most recently in the music industry; there are only two possible outcomes. Either the business models and practiced witin the industry change to take advantage of the new technology, or through legislation and legal maneuvering, industry trade organizations act to preserve the status quo, thereby damaging the economic efficiency of the market, and reducing the overall customer utility of their products. This latter strategy is doomed to failure in the long term, but does protect the interests of the cuttent industry players, at least for the one generation it will take for the leaders of these organizations to retire and move on.
In short, the movie industry is destined for great termoil, but the result will be a more efficient marketplace offering products of greater customer utility. While the requirements for creation and delivery of these products is not the same as those of the previous generation, there are plenty of service sector opportunities around every new technology. The players must simply be fleible enough to adapt and identify a service requirement of the new technology, which is compatible with that company's earlier business.
It will be a painful transition but we will all be better for it.
--CTH
It's good to see this issue finally resolved, but this isn't the limit of the sleeziness of AT&T et al. Equally as disturbing as the phone lease charges addressed in this suit, is the ongoing bilking of cutomers who don't keep up on service plans and pricing opportunities. Many elderly customers (including, my grandparents, as I duscovered a few years back) are still recieving service at AT&T's base rates, from the late '70s, without the advantage of any of the pricing plans currently available upon request from all long distance carriers. Certainly the argument that it is the customer's responsibility to investigate pricing opportunities, is not without weight, but there are AT&T customers still recieving Pro Watts service, which in my case I discovered, then I tried to dial an 888 number from my grand parents redidence. Upon review of their bill, and with one 5 minute phone call, their bill was reduced by almost 70%, but the carriers are under no oblication to move customers to any particular rate plan at any time, and because the customer demographic which includes senior-citizens does not demonstrate elasticity in their telephone calling patterns, such that regardless of pricing, they will likely make the same amount of calls; there is no incentive on the part of carriers to offer them any more modern pricing plans. This is particularly interesting because over the past 20 years, it has been common opinion within the telecom industry that as market pressures drive pricing for basic calling services down, that refenue differential will be recouped through the pricision of more advanced services such as caller-ID, 3-way calling, distinctive ring, and so on.
At some point it will no longer be cost effective to treat their customer base in these two wildly divergent ways, and telecom carriers will be forced to bring their pricing into allignment elderly customers, althoufh this will have the down side of pringing down on these customers, that deluge of telemarketing calls from competing providers - a joy to whih they have been to some degree spared thus far.
--CTH
The problems asociated with CPU cooling can't be solved by spraying the chip. Although it would be neat to have a robot running around monitoring systems in a datacenter, It seems unlikely that spraying overheating CPUs is a wasted effort. Perhaps a robot that answers the helpdesk phone and insults the users. Why pay a Bastard Operator From Hell when you could have a robot, or even simple IVR system that serves the same purpose. And you'd have a really cool Tape Robot to handle your system backups.
--CTH
The Solution:
The RIAA was created to insure that artists were compensated for their work in a time when such compensation of indevidual artists for their work, would have otherwise been impossible. Times have changed. Artists no longer need the RIAA, or for that matter ASCAP or BMI but broadcasters need to provide the artists an alternative. I'm no fan of direct mail marketing but they have a trade association which acts to implement self governance where otherwise there would be legislation governing the industry.
In the case of the Recording and broadcast industry, a private organization has stepped into that governmental role, and through extensive lobying efforts, actually has legislation on the books that backs their esentually userous behavior. IANAL, but I assume this legisltaion doesn't name the RIAA specifically, instead requiring that through some means, the artists must be compensated for their work. It follows that a new organisation could be established that managed escrow accounts for ALL artists, into which royalties would be paid by broadcasters, in an ammount a little more than they are paid by the RIAA, on a per broadcast basis. The accounts would be structured such that ONLY THE ARTISTS would have access to the funds. Any artists wishing to gain access to these funds would simply have to provide appropriate identification as the performer for which the funds were being held, then agree that these funds were being paid as appropriate royalties for the rebroadcast of their music by the broadcaster-members of the organization. Certainly issues atround copyright onership of the music (where in the eample it is assumed the artist owns the copyright to their music) would have to be addressed, but the point is simple. The RIAA keeps a large percentage of the funds they collect, supposedly, to dispurse to artists. Certainly a modern organization, using modern technologies, and without all the baggage of the RIAA would be able to handle this situation in a more efficient manner.
--CTH
Throuhout this case, I've been most impressed ith the coalition that was formed between the plaintiff organizations. It's reasuring to see such coalitions formed in support of issues where until recently it seemed a losing battle was being valiently fought by a few small groups with no unifying structure arounmd them. Regardless of how meager this victory seems, it's important that the issue was addressed in that it galvanized these organizations and brought them together in a way we have rately seen thus far. I hope we see these organizations continueto work closely in the future.
--CTH
So it's a cliche, but work should be it's own reward. This is not to say 'You should be thankful you have a job at all' but rather, if you don't enjoy the work you're doing, go find something you do enjoy. Grantes this isn't the best economy in which to follow such advice, but still, It's nice to see a few people who have found jobs that they truly enjoy and pursue that work regardless of how limited the other benefits are.
--CTH
I can see it now. "Officer, It's not my fault. Microsoft sold me an unsafe product. If it were safe, my car wouldn't have stalled in the middle of the inteterstate."
In all seriousness though, as the promotion of WIndows for Embedded Devices continues, these sorts of safety issues will need to be evaluated vary carefully. The software industry - the only industry in which selling defective products has almost no consequences - will have to take greater responsibility for bugs and instabilities in their products. As the stakes go up to the point where their products are directly responsible for human lives, a new approach to security and reliability will be needed. Among other things, Microsoft will need to alter it's position oposing full disclosure of security vulterabilities.
Cars running Windows are one thing but regardless of what steps are taken, it'll be many years before I'll be comfortable being attached to a heart bypass machine running MS Windows for Embedded Devices.
--CTH
It's important to remember that this case has been taken ob by 'class action specialists' at a large well known law firm. Aturneys in class action suits usually take them on to line their own pockets, rather than for the greater good, so I fully expect they will be looking for a financial settlement, rather than amy more meaningful remedy. We're not talking about EFF or ACLU lawyers here. This case is esentially being brought by high class ambulence chasers. I wouldn't be suprised if we are extremely dissatisfied with the resolution to this case, regardless of who wins.
--CTH
Careful reading will indicate the discussion is of providers of wireless network access. As for offering pieces of the spectrum, that's the domain of the FCC, but is not the focus of this discussion.
While there is no technical violation of the GPL here, there is a deterrent to contributing to OSS projects, as you say, with the knowledge that your software will be subverted in this way.
On the other hand, all we're really talking about is filesystem layouts and perhaps makefile adjustments. The actions of the UnitedLinux group will simply cause developers to state that their software is explicitly NOT CERTIFIED (by the developers) for use on UnitedLinux, which would be particularly damaging to the distro companies, if enough large projects made this statement. Realistically though, these companies will come to their senses. There's no valid reason to anger developers in this way, because there are enough steps the developers could take to prevent use of their software on any particular distribution.
In not, this will be a big win for Microsoft, as large numbers of developers abandon OSS projects in favor of other hobbies.
--CTH
OSS is inherently a collaborative effort. Microsoft has historically taken a confrontational stance in the marketplace to the point where they have angered their competitors to such a degree that they are unlikely to be able to play in a collaborative enviroment where that collaboration is based on anything other than the threat of the alternative confrontation which their partners in collaboration would otherwise face.
This historical lesson learned by Microsoft's competitors over the first 15 years of Microsoft's existance, has poisoned the waters and will effect any relationships Microsoft forges in the marketplace for many years into the future.
This situation nessecerily precludes the type of collaboration required for successful OSS development, so Microsoft can not reasonably take any position other than the one they have thus far, without creating an enviroment where they will have excluded themselves from the marketplace through their own actions.
It's almost sad, but this is the current condition of Microsoft in the software industry, regardless of whether anyone could convince them of the error of their ways.
--CTH
Like all resources, it will be offered at little or no cost until it becomes sufficiently limited, at which point the cost to utilize the resource will increase, and provision of the service will become proffitable, so we will see the end of community wireless networks, and the re-emergence of for-proffit networks, where access is restricted and the frequencies used will only be available to subscribers.
--CTH
If the recent internet Libel case goes to verdict, it may impact the power of current anti-spam laws as well. If it turns out that people can be sued for libel in the jurisdiction where internet content is being viewed, it then follows that spammers can be sued for breakage of anti-spam laws in the jurisdiction where the spam is recieved. Only time will tell how this will paly out but there is a silver lining to everythnig, if you look hard enough.
--CTH
Personally I was never in favor of RealNames because they represented a polution of data integrity with regard to source material agailable on the net, but I my opposition was based on my concern that the business would success in their stated goal and cause this damange. I would not be concerned if the company was inheredtly doomed to failure.
It's disappointing that Microsoft weilds such power that they can, with a single business decision, cause the ruin of a company, however it's good to see that Microsoft's own potentially highly successful forray into the internet-as-a-platform space is not gaining the full support of the company. This division within the company allows other providers to keep their foot in the door, and particularly may be the saving grace of JAVA. Only time will tell.
--CTH
Most lemmon laws state that products sold to customers must be of a certain minimum quality. This would not impact OSS development projects because they do not sell products or product licenses (live treditional software vendors do). Most OSS organizations that seek to proffit directly from the software being written, tend to sell support contracts. A typical example of this is MySQL AB. It's reasonable to assume that any software lemmon law would contain language similar to lemmon laws relating to other products. This language is usually limited to products sold to a customer, so, again, OSS development activities would not be affected, however anyone seeking to sell softare - typically those with business models tied to BSD style licenses - will probably be impacted and will have to shift to the service and support model of outfits like Redhat. Zealots like Stallman and ESR whould be thrilled by this.
On the other hand the Microsoft lobying machine should be in full force, makind the entirely inane argument that "If this legislation is going to screw us over it should screw over OSS as well". We can only hope that legislators will be able to see through such arguments.
--CTH
I've been trying to dig up the original source for some time. I read it in an AP Wire story carried in a local paper in CT in the summer of 1994 (I think). Aparently the original source was a Harbard Business School research paper, although I have not had the opportunity to search it out. I intend to when time allows. It really is a vary interesting and streight-forward concept that he was pointing out.
It's a basic principle of business - and also, strangely, con artists - you're better off taking a little off your customer/mark over a long period, maintaining a positive relationship for an extended period, rather than taking them for all their worth once and never hearing from them again. You want them coming back, asking for the privilege of handing you more money.
In the business world this is of course, achieved through providing quality products at a fair price acompanied by good customer service.
In a con game, this is achieved through convincing your mark that you are acting in his best interest, and if that deesn't work you can always try threats and extortion.
Microsoft seems to have made a business decision that it is more cost effective to derive funds through threats and extortion rather than by providing a quality product. Before you dismiss this as being an overbroad accusation, consider the following.
In the early 1990s Steve Balmer was quoted as saying that "Software Piracy is a critical part of Microsoft's Business", the reasoning being that if those who couldn't afford Microsoft products, pirated them and their use of the software increased their efficiency in business and otherwise, they would become more profitable both personally and in business and be able to afford to pay for upgrades to the software, so Microsoft would proffit through a somewhat obscure customer aquisition technique.
In the Mid 1990s the BSA began to take major steps to try and curb software piracy through various threats and lobying for new anti-piracy legislation.
Then, in the late 1990s and now, Microsoft has become dissatisfied with collecting from those who illegally use their software. Now they are seeking out organizations who use their software legally, and have always acted in good faith, singling them out, causing them expense and time which they can not afford, above and beyond that which they have already budgeted to legally purchase the software in question.
Is it really a suprise that these faithful customers are now objecting and seeking other alternatives? No. I think not.