I also had that impression, as I was reading the series. I thought that the hobbits did indeed basically get pulled along because Frodo could hold out against the temptation of the ring, and in many instances the others in the Fellowship called him "Ringbearer" and underestimated his abilities. I got the feeling that the only one of the whole group that saw the Hobbits for the heroes they turned out to be (before they actually did heroic things) was Gandalf, and that's because he was Istari. I'll be disappointed if Frodo and Samwise get sideline treatment in the next two movies, but in FOTR it seems appropriate.
As to your nick, shouldn't it be spelled, "bonzoesque"? As to your point, I have seen both wonderful and awful installations for both Linux and Windows. We all must be careful not to consider only personal experience when deciding if a particular OS is easy or difficult to install and configure. There are many who say that Joe Sixpack can't handle configuring Linux, and that's true, but that same Joe would have a great deal of difficulty configuring the nuts and bolts of Windows. The difference lies only in that Microsoft has a default setup that Joe can use right out of the box. Linux needs that same setup, and once it happens (and it will; Red Hat has been working on it for a while and someday they'll have to get it right) then that difference will disappear. Also, as more computer OEMs start offering Linux preinstalled, the knowledge necessary to use Linux will drop precipitously, since it'll no longer be necessary for Joe to install his own OS.
Ease of install is important, but there's much that can be done to level that particular playing field.
Damn! I used all of my mod points yesterday, and this statement deserves to be modded up. I have used some very intuitive CLI interfaces, and I've battled my way through far too many very stylish but utterly befuddling GUI interfaces. Widgets are nice if they add to the usability of the interface, but they're certainly not a requirement. I had a wonderful dream once where make config for a kernel would display something like "ipchains? (Y,N,M,H)" and choosing "H" would display the kernel help that can be had on a number of different web sites.
So, I'm very much with the original poster that ease of use does not rely on a pretty face, and that a pretty face does not guarantee ease of use.
> Well I'm not going to quible over the exact number of years,
> but I notice that you haven't given a specific year either so
> perhaps you're not so sure.
The lawsuit was filed in 1996, and encompassed activities during the 1991-1994 time frame. The reason for the delay was that Novell executives (Novell bought out DR) were loathe to try to take on Microsoft in 1994 because they were afraid the fight would bankrupt the company. Ray Noorda (the CEO of Novell) retired from Novell, created his own company (Caldera), bought the rights to DR-DOS, and immediately filed suit. You can claim that 1996 was also ancient history in this industry, but since the antitrust suit began in 1997 and is still being resolved today, that would be a big stretch.
> Your conclusion that Windows is dominant because MS derailed
> DR-DOS seems to me a big leap.
Split it into to logical steps. MS-DOS gained hugely in installed base when DR-DOS was driven from the marketplace. By the time Windows 95 came around, there was effectively no other OS to choose, and Microsoft helped that along by stopping OEMs from selling Windows 3.1 on new machines after Win95 came out. It's not very realistic to assume that if DR was still in the market, that they would not have developed an integrated GUI in the four years between Microsoft's torpedoing them and the advent of Windows 95. Peter Norton's Windows bolt-on (called Norton Desktop for Windows) was doing quite well, in fact, but he (and then Symantec) couldn't get clearance from the VCs and board of directors, respectively, to make it a stand-alone GUI product because nobody thought that it would stand a chance against Microsoft, seeing what they did to DR. That is to me a pretty good indicator that their market share coupled with their monopoly abuse (keep in mind that Microsoft paid up on the case involving DR-DOS so I can say they did abuse their position) doomed other GUI products before they ever got out in the field.
I did read your post. "PC-based" means "runs on PCs" so I didn't naturally compare that to "runs on Intel architecture" like you did. To defend my point, Windows NT can install on PowerPC systems, so even they don't directly agree with your assumption. And, considering how often people and companies buy new hardware, it's not nearly as likely today as ten years ago to be a problem to buy a different hardware platform. Like I said, you could buy PowerPCs (or Alphas) and not have to leave Microsoft if you wanted.
> In any case, I don't think DR's experience 15 years ago is
> sufficient excuse for all the other competitors today.
This belief would be funny if it wasn't so sad. "DR's experience fifteen years ago" happened about ten years ago, and it led directly to the dominance of Windows (and thus Windows 95 and so on) since then. To cite another example of abuse of monopoly power that closed up a market, let's look at the railroad industry. When railroads were first beginning to appear in the U.S., there were literally hundreds of them all over the country. Soon, large rail companies discovered that they could use their size to push out competitors. Their tactics included:
1.) Drive out with prices: the large rail company would set up operations in the area of an established railroad, and begin moving goods for virtually no cost. The large rail company would subsidize this startup so it could run at a huge loss, and the established rail company would have to eat huge losses just to compete. Most of them could not, and when they went out of business, the large rail company would then jack prices up to whatever they wanted. Any time a competitor would appear, they'd drop prices until that competitor was gone.
2.) Large rail companies would engage in "Grange busting" by refusing to ship the goods of farmers who unionized for better pricing. They'd do the same for any company that tried to organize their industry to get better bargaining power. In some cases, specific companies were targetted for elimination (and were mostly driven out of business). This also extended to the practice of refusing to ship any goods for a company unless they used said large rail company for all shipping, so most manufacturers couldn't risk shipping by anyone else, even in part.
Now, if drawing the parallels between example 1 and what happened to Netscape and example 2 and what happened to the OEMs selling DR-DOS, (and by extension, Digital Research) is difficult, you're not paying attention. The moral of the story is that these hundreds of competitive rail companies were reduced by these practices to four (who didn't directly compete because they agreed not to encroach on each other's territory) and entry into the market was made prohibitive because the established giants were too big to fight after they'd chased away everyone else. This is what happened with Microsoft, and this is why there are so many companies taking issue today. They're not decrying MS creating a monopoly a decade ago, they're decrying that MS is using that market stronghold to prevent competition today.
...I didn't have a choice, through the very favorable circumstance that someone bought the machine for me as a gift. You could say that I therefore shouldn't be looking a gift horse in the mouth, but the point is not that I could have bought a machine elsewhere, but that I shouldn't have to buy from someone else because they won't keep their word. They flat-out lied to me, and that's why I presented the scenario.
Well, in answer to your comment, your logic pans out to "why are you so mad at Microsoft for doing something that companies X, Y and Z would do if given the chance?" I'm mad because:
1.) Those other companies may wish to do these things, but they haven't actually been convicted of breaking the law yet.
2.) Arguing that others would break the law if they could is not an excuse for breaking the law.
3.) They broke the law.
That's a pretty simple explanation. When any of the others break the law, I'll start hue-ing and crying about them.
I won't even begin to wonder why you think Apple hasn't tried to compete with Microsoft, or hasn't poured a lot into marketing, but I don't even need that one. Here's mine:
Digital Research - Published DR-DOS, which was a direct (and fairly successful) competitor for MS-DOS. They were driven out of the market when Microsoft went to computer OEMs and said, "if you offer DR-DOS on any machine you sell, we'll refuse to sell you licenses for MS-DOS." Because OEMs were selling about 40 percent DR-DOS and 60 percent MS-DOS, many of them could not afford to drop support for MS-DOS, so they dropped support for DR-DOS. In addition, when Windows 3.0 came out, during the installation it would check for DR-DOS on the machine, and if it was found, would throw three screenfuls of warnings about possible malfunctions (not a single one of which could they prove when Caldera, who now owns DR-DOS, sucessfully sued them). Many users were scared off by these warnings, and DR-DOS died out.
Maybe you have a different definition of "compete", but this seems to have involved a company (Digital Research) putting "some" money on the line, and getting spanked because Microsoft bullied OEMs.
> You'll have to come up with better than a little heat from the
> marketing guys to prove there was coercion involved. Citing a
> single instance where Microsoft followed through on their threats would
> be a help. However, nobody presents evidence of a follow-through.
> So you're all blowing hot air.
Never say all. How about DR-DOS? Here's a link where the settlement is mentioned, and I leave it to you to dig into the details of the case if you dare. In several instances (two in Europe and one in the U.S.) Microsoft stated in contracts that the companies in question were not allowed to sell a computer without paying them for a license for MS-DOS, even if they didn't actually install MS-DOS. When the company in the U.S. complained, they were told that if they sold a computer without paying the royalty, they'd lose the right to sell MS-DOS at all. This made computers with DR-DOS more expensive than computers with MS-DOS only, and since these companies couldn't afford not to sell MS-DOS, they had to knuckle under. This pressure came in the form of legal documents from Microsoft's attorneys, not "a little heat from the marketing guys" as you put it. This is one of the parts of the case that has Microsoft in such hot water in Europe.
On a more personal note, I recently got a PC from Dell. It came with Windows Millenium preinstalled, and I could not buy a PC without some Microsoft OS installed. I decided that I didn't really want it, so when I got the computer I clicked "I Do Not Agree" to the EULA. It told me to contact my PC vendor for refund information. I called Dell, and they said they wouldn't refund my money, and that I'd have to contact Microsoft if I wanted my refund. I contacted Microsoft and they told me they wouldn't refund my money either. I reminded them that Dell said they'd pay me back, and they said, "take it up with Dell." I called Dell back and they said they can't give me a refund because they can't get the money back from Microsoft.
Now would you like to tell me about hot air? Or perhaps you'd like to refute my points? Or maybe you'll give me back the money that Microsoft won't for a product I don't want and didn't have a choice about buying? Especially since they lied in their license about being willing to refund it if I didn't agree to their ridiculous EULA?
I actually started laughing so hard people came to my cube to ask what was so funny. You deserve most of the funny mod points given to responses in this article.
> Meaning, prices are slightly inflated, and then 'discounted'
> to those who give up their personal information. That's my opinion, anyhow.
You're certainly not alone, but my research suggests it's a real discount. Now, my research was by the highly unscientific method of comparing the "no card" price in the stores with cards to the price in stores that didn't offer cards, but it seems they really are paying you for your secrets. I'm certain that some price jacking does take place, but on the whole it doesn't seem to be a scam.
I hear an awful lot in terms of comparing this device to shopper loyalty cards, but there are (at least) two very major differences. First, the store actually pays me to use the card. If I use it, my stuff costs less. This device isn't likely to reduce the number of commercials I have to watch in return for the information it gets. Second, if I decide I'm buying something I don't want in the database, I can pocket the card and they're none the wiser. Is there some method by which I can temporarily turn off the tracking on this device? Not likely. So, this comparison is essentially invalid.
> So how does it intend to find out that Joe responds to commercials?
By the surprisingly easy method of channel monitoring. It's been shown time and again that if a commercial is uninteresting, people will surf around to other channels, then come back when they think the show is back on. This behavior is also what drives the short-long method, where the first commercial break in a show is short (two or three ads) then the next is longer, and the network can charge more for the ones in the middle of the long set, since they have a higher "hit position" than the ones in the beginning. So, the device simply monitors which commercials keep Joe from changing the channel, and then looks for trends in those commercials to see what themes keep his hands off the remote.
And you thought this was simple? Networks spend millions learning stuff like this.
What he was saying is that 5/7 Cherokee would have been funnier than 3/4, specifically because it's genetically impossible (it would require an ancestor with one or three parents, see).
> I personally think he should have done more and put some of the
> responsible government employees in jail for contempt and malfeasance.
The court is going to consider just that. From the Indian Trust website:
"Our clients cannot afford any more of the incompetence of the
Department of the Interior," Gingold said. "We can't afford it." Keith Harper of the Native American Rights Fund said he hoped the fiasco would provide further evidence of [Secretary of Interior Gale] Norton's negligence when a contempt trial begins on Monday. By not reporting the numerous security problems, he said the Interior has breached its obligations to Indian beneficiaries once again. The Interior did not return repeated calls requesting comment.
Norton and Assistant Secretary Neal McCaleb, also facing contempt charges, were both traveling outside of Washington, D.C., when the proceedings were taking place.
If convicted, the principals face fines and possible jail time.
Two things: first, some keys have the brains on the tongue, not the head. Second, virtually every key has the interface on the tongue, so cutting it off leaves you with a chip that can't talk to the antitheft system.
A good idea, with a few warnings. First, some manufacturers store the chip in the tongue, so cutting it off would simply destroy the key, Also, the chipped part of the key could be inserted, and then the car could be started with a screwdriver (the key part ensures the lock cylinder will turn easily, and the chip starts the car). With those warnings in mind, have at those cutters!
> Since when does a dealer want to faciltiate you *not* having to take the car back to them for sservice?
Since when do dealerships make decisions in the design of engine components? There are many reasons for why cars are designed the way they are, but they do not include forcing you to go back to the dealership for service. The giveaway is that the auto manufacturers don't make any money from a dealership's service department (other than for parts, and most independent mechanics will use factory parts for most repair jobs anyway) so there's no economic drive for carmakers to design in such things.
P.S. The "module" necessary to reset the service light on a BMW was also referred to in some circles as a "screwdriver", which can be had from select non-BMW vendors, I believe.
I agree with you because I find the original poster's statement to be incomplete. I would reword it, "Making something illegal or applying mandatory monitoring by non-technologists does nothing...." In response to your rebuttal, the punishments you described were (for the most part) established by those with experience, if not expertise, in social psychology. If punishments and deterrents are developed by those with a knowledge of network secutiry, they're much more likely to be effective (and not overreaching) than those developed by politicians without the background necessary to make intelligent decisions about technology.
The Chicago Manual of Style says I can do it either way in the context I used (punctuation not part of the quote). So that's just a matter of preference.
As well as your ability to read. It was "Outlowed", not "Autolowed". Autolowed is what programs do. Outlowed means "made lower than", or, alternatively, "mooed more than".
Slashdot Mirror
I also had that impression, as I was reading the series. I thought that the hobbits did indeed basically get pulled along because Frodo could hold out against the temptation of the ring, and in many instances the others in the Fellowship called him "Ringbearer" and underestimated his abilities. I got the feeling that the only one of the whole group that saw the Hobbits for the heroes they turned out to be (before they actually did heroic things) was Gandalf, and that's because he was Istari. I'll be disappointed if Frodo and Samwise get sideline treatment in the next two movies, but in FOTR it seems appropriate.
Virg
The movie was the first book. The next two movies (due out December 2002 and 2003) cover the rest of the story.
Virg
Yes. Read The Hobbit, then LOTR.
Virg
As to your nick, shouldn't it be spelled, "bonzoesque"? As to your point, I have seen both wonderful and awful installations for both Linux and Windows. We all must be careful not to consider only personal experience when deciding if a particular OS is easy or difficult to install and configure. There are many who say that Joe Sixpack can't handle configuring Linux, and that's true, but that same Joe would have a great deal of difficulty configuring the nuts and bolts of Windows. The difference lies only in that Microsoft has a default setup that Joe can use right out of the box. Linux needs that same setup, and once it happens (and it will; Red Hat has been working on it for a while and someday they'll have to get it right) then that difference will disappear. Also, as more computer OEMs start offering Linux preinstalled, the knowledge necessary to use Linux will drop precipitously, since it'll no longer be necessary for Joe to install his own OS.
Ease of install is important, but there's much that can be done to level that particular playing field.
Virg
Damn! I used all of my mod points yesterday, and this statement deserves to be modded up. I have used some very intuitive CLI interfaces, and I've battled my way through far too many very stylish but utterly befuddling GUI interfaces. Widgets are nice if they add to the usability of the interface, but they're certainly not a requirement. I had a wonderful dream once where make config for a kernel would display something like "ipchains? (Y,N,M,H)" and choosing "H" would display the kernel help that can be had on a number of different web sites.
So, I'm very much with the original poster that ease of use does not rely on a pretty face, and that a pretty face does not guarantee ease of use.
Virg
> Well I'm not going to quible over the exact number of years,
> but I notice that you haven't given a specific year either so
> perhaps you're not so sure.
The lawsuit was filed in 1996, and encompassed activities during the 1991-1994 time frame. The reason for the delay was that Novell executives (Novell bought out DR) were loathe to try to take on Microsoft in 1994 because they were afraid the fight would bankrupt the company. Ray Noorda (the CEO of Novell) retired from Novell, created his own company (Caldera), bought the rights to DR-DOS, and immediately filed suit. You can claim that 1996 was also ancient history in this industry, but since the antitrust suit began in 1997 and is still being resolved today, that would be a big stretch.
> Your conclusion that Windows is dominant because MS derailed
> DR-DOS seems to me a big leap.
Split it into to logical steps. MS-DOS gained hugely in installed base when DR-DOS was driven from the marketplace. By the time Windows 95 came around, there was effectively no other OS to choose, and Microsoft helped that along by stopping OEMs from selling Windows 3.1 on new machines after Win95 came out. It's not very realistic to assume that if DR was still in the market, that they would not have developed an integrated GUI in the four years between Microsoft's torpedoing them and the advent of Windows 95. Peter Norton's Windows bolt-on (called Norton Desktop for Windows) was doing quite well, in fact, but he (and then Symantec) couldn't get clearance from the VCs and board of directors, respectively, to make it a stand-alone GUI product because nobody thought that it would stand a chance against Microsoft, seeing what they did to DR. That is to me a pretty good indicator that their market share coupled with their monopoly abuse (keep in mind that Microsoft paid up on the case involving DR-DOS so I can say they did abuse their position) doomed other GUI products before they ever got out in the field.
Virg
> You didn't read my post. I said a PC-based OS.
I did read your post. "PC-based" means "runs on PCs" so I didn't naturally compare that to "runs on Intel architecture" like you did. To defend my point, Windows NT can install on PowerPC systems, so even they don't directly agree with your assumption. And, considering how often people and companies buy new hardware, it's not nearly as likely today as ten years ago to be a problem to buy a different hardware platform. Like I said, you could buy PowerPCs (or Alphas) and not have to leave Microsoft if you wanted.
> In any case, I don't think DR's experience 15 years ago is
> sufficient excuse for all the other competitors today.
This belief would be funny if it wasn't so sad. "DR's experience fifteen years ago" happened about ten years ago, and it led directly to the dominance of Windows (and thus Windows 95 and so on) since then. To cite another example of abuse of monopoly power that closed up a market, let's look at the railroad industry. When railroads were first beginning to appear in the U.S., there were literally hundreds of them all over the country. Soon, large rail companies discovered that they could use their size to push out competitors. Their tactics included:
1.) Drive out with prices: the large rail company would set up operations in the area of an established railroad, and begin moving goods for virtually no cost. The large rail company would subsidize this startup so it could run at a huge loss, and the established rail company would have to eat huge losses just to compete. Most of them could not, and when they went out of business, the large rail company would then jack prices up to whatever they wanted. Any time a competitor would appear, they'd drop prices until that competitor was gone.
2.) Large rail companies would engage in "Grange busting" by refusing to ship the goods of farmers who unionized for better pricing. They'd do the same for any company that tried to organize their industry to get better bargaining power. In some cases, specific companies were targetted for elimination (and were mostly driven out of business). This also extended to the practice of refusing to ship any goods for a company unless they used said large rail company for all shipping, so most manufacturers couldn't risk shipping by anyone else, even in part.
Now, if drawing the parallels between example 1 and what happened to Netscape and example 2 and what happened to the OEMs selling DR-DOS, (and by extension, Digital Research) is difficult, you're not paying attention. The moral of the story is that these hundreds of competitive rail companies were reduced by these practices to four (who didn't directly compete because they agreed not to encroach on each other's territory) and entry into the market was made prohibitive because the established giants were too big to fight after they'd chased away everyone else. This is what happened with Microsoft, and this is why there are so many companies taking issue today. They're not decrying MS creating a monopoly a decade ago, they're decrying that MS is using that market stronghold to prevent competition today.
Virg
...I didn't have a choice, through the very favorable circumstance that someone bought the machine for me as a gift. You could say that I therefore shouldn't be looking a gift horse in the mouth, but the point is not that I could have bought a machine elsewhere, but that I shouldn't have to buy from someone else because they won't keep their word. They flat-out lied to me, and that's why I presented the scenario.
Virg
Well, in answer to your comment, your logic pans out to "why are you so mad at Microsoft for doing something that companies X, Y and Z would do if given the chance?" I'm mad because:
1.) Those other companies may wish to do these things, but they haven't actually been convicted of breaking the law yet.
2.) Arguing that others would break the law if they could is not an excuse for breaking the law.
3.) They broke the law.
That's a pretty simple explanation. When any of the others break the law, I'll start hue-ing and crying about them.
Virg
I won't even begin to wonder why you think Apple hasn't tried to compete with Microsoft, or hasn't poured a lot into marketing, but I don't even need that one. Here's mine:
Digital Research - Published DR-DOS, which was a direct (and fairly successful) competitor for MS-DOS. They were driven out of the market when Microsoft went to computer OEMs and said, "if you offer DR-DOS on any machine you sell, we'll refuse to sell you licenses for MS-DOS." Because OEMs were selling about 40 percent DR-DOS and 60 percent MS-DOS, many of them could not afford to drop support for MS-DOS, so they dropped support for DR-DOS. In addition, when Windows 3.0 came out, during the installation it would check for DR-DOS on the machine, and if it was found, would throw three screenfuls of warnings about possible malfunctions (not a single one of which could they prove when Caldera, who now owns DR-DOS, sucessfully sued them). Many users were scared off by these warnings, and DR-DOS died out.
Maybe you have a different definition of "compete", but this seems to have involved a company (Digital Research) putting "some" money on the line, and getting spanked because Microsoft bullied OEMs.
But hey, thanks for playing...
Virg
> You'll have to come up with better than a little heat from the
> marketing guys to prove there was coercion involved. Citing a
> single instance where Microsoft followed through on their threats would
> be a help. However, nobody presents evidence of a follow-through.
> So you're all blowing hot air.
Never say all. How about DR-DOS? Here's a link where the settlement is mentioned, and I leave it to you to dig into the details of the case if you dare. In several instances (two in Europe and one in the U.S.) Microsoft stated in contracts that the companies in question were not allowed to sell a computer without paying them for a license for MS-DOS, even if they didn't actually install MS-DOS. When the company in the U.S. complained, they were told that if they sold a computer without paying the royalty, they'd lose the right to sell MS-DOS at all. This made computers with DR-DOS more expensive than computers with MS-DOS only, and since these companies couldn't afford not to sell MS-DOS, they had to knuckle under. This pressure came in the form of legal documents from Microsoft's attorneys, not "a little heat from the marketing guys" as you put it. This is one of the parts of the case that has Microsoft in such hot water in Europe.
On a more personal note, I recently got a PC from Dell. It came with Windows Millenium preinstalled, and I could not buy a PC without some Microsoft OS installed. I decided that I didn't really want it, so when I got the computer I clicked "I Do Not Agree" to the EULA. It told me to contact my PC vendor for refund information. I called Dell, and they said they wouldn't refund my money, and that I'd have to contact Microsoft if I wanted my refund. I contacted Microsoft and they told me they wouldn't refund my money either. I reminded them that Dell said they'd pay me back, and they said, "take it up with Dell." I called Dell back and they said they can't give me a refund because they can't get the money back from Microsoft.
Now would you like to tell me about hot air? Or perhaps you'd like to refute my points? Or maybe you'll give me back the money that Microsoft won't for a product I don't want and didn't have a choice about buying? Especially since they lied in their license about being willing to refund it if I didn't agree to their ridiculous EULA?
Didn't think so.
Virg
I actually started laughing so hard people came to my cube to ask what was so funny. You deserve most of the funny mod points given to responses in this article.
(+10, Callbacks are the best humor)
Virg
> Meaning, prices are slightly inflated, and then 'discounted'
> to those who give up their personal information. That's my opinion, anyhow.
You're certainly not alone, but my research suggests it's a real discount. Now, my research was by the highly unscientific method of comparing the "no card" price in the stores with cards to the price in stores that didn't offer cards, but it seems they really are paying you for your secrets. I'm certain that some price jacking does take place, but on the whole it doesn't seem to be a scam.
Virg
I hear an awful lot in terms of comparing this device to shopper loyalty cards, but there are (at least) two very major differences. First, the store actually pays me to use the card. If I use it, my stuff costs less. This device isn't likely to reduce the number of commercials I have to watch in return for the information it gets. Second, if I decide I'm buying something I don't want in the database, I can pocket the card and they're none the wiser. Is there some method by which I can temporarily turn off the tracking on this device? Not likely. So, this comparison is essentially invalid.
Virg
> So how does it intend to find out that Joe responds to commercials?
By the surprisingly easy method of channel monitoring. It's been shown time and again that if a commercial is uninteresting, people will surf around to other channels, then come back when they think the show is back on. This behavior is also what drives the short-long method, where the first commercial break in a show is short (two or three ads) then the next is longer, and the network can charge more for the ones in the middle of the long set, since they have a higher "hit position" than the ones in the beginning. So, the device simply monitors which commercials keep Joe from changing the channel, and then looks for trends in those commercials to see what themes keep his hands off the remote.
And you thought this was simple? Networks spend millions learning stuff like this.
Virg
Completely ignoring the troll, I got a minor laugh from the title, because I read it, "What are you fucking, stupid?"
Virg
What he was saying is that 5/7 Cherokee would have been funnier than 3/4, specifically because it's genetically impossible (it would require an ancestor with one or three parents, see).
Virg
> responsible government employees in jail for contempt and malfeasance.
The court is going to consider just that. From the Indian Trust website:If convicted, the principals face fines and possible jail time.
Virg
Two things: first, some keys have the brains on the tongue, not the head. Second, virtually every key has the interface on the tongue, so cutting it off leaves you with a chip that can't talk to the antitheft system.
Virg
A good idea, with a few warnings. First, some manufacturers store the chip in the tongue, so cutting it off would simply destroy the key, Also, the chipped part of the key could be inserted, and then the car could be started with a screwdriver (the key part ensures the lock cylinder will turn easily, and the chip starts the car). With those warnings in mind, have at those cutters!
Virg
> Since when does a dealer want to faciltiate you *not* having to take the car back to them for sservice?
Since when do dealerships make decisions in the design of engine components? There are many reasons for why cars are designed the way they are, but they do not include forcing you to go back to the dealership for service. The giveaway is that the auto manufacturers don't make any money from a dealership's service department (other than for parts, and most independent mechanics will use factory parts for most repair jobs anyway) so there's no economic drive for carmakers to design in such things.
P.S. The "module" necessary to reset the service light on a BMW was also referred to in some circles as a "screwdriver", which can be had from select non-BMW vendors, I believe.
Virg
I agree with you because I find the original poster's statement to be incomplete. I would reword it, "Making something illegal or applying mandatory monitoring by non-technologists does nothing...." In response to your rebuttal, the punishments you described were (for the most part) established by those with experience, if not expertise, in social psychology. If punishments and deterrents are developed by those with a knowledge of network secutiry, they're much more likely to be effective (and not overreaching) than those developed by politicians without the background necessary to make intelligent decisions about technology.
Virg
The Chicago Manual of Style says I can do it either way in the context I used (punctuation not part of the quote). So that's just a matter of preference.
Virg
> So should your inability to spell...
As well as your ability to read. It was "Outlowed", not "Autolowed". Autolowed is what programs do. Outlowed means "made lower than", or, alternatively, "mooed more than".
Virg
> if it looks like a trogan, smells like a trogan, acts like a trogan....
Then it's probably a trojan.
Virg