I think it's a great idea and only a matter of time before it's the main model. The possible income from that model is a magnitude smaller than traditional 30 second ads though.
When you give you president dictatorial powers and have no oversight and no way of getting rid of a president during his term, you have put yourself at risk.
What happens when the law enforcement agencies are corrupt...
Then we are fucked and need to fix the problem. There are many ways for cops to be corrupt, abusing access to server logs is one of many possible actions. Note that tried and tested mechanisms are in place to prevent police corruption, but that does not make them infallable.
What happens when a whole nation has gone insane?
Ok so give me any law you can think of. What happens when the country goes insane, or the police go corrupt? Law X doesn't work then does it. You are using an argument which really discounts any law you care to bring up.
As the GP post pointed out, law enforcement needs access to server logs for many valid reasons. There are even cases where access to such logs would save lives (yes, it could also kill lives in the hand of a corrupt force, but so could handguns in corrupt hands).
In the future I imagine most employers will do a google search for an applicant's name. If you consider how precarious it is to hire people based on a 40 minute conversation, that information could be pretty useful.
It makes it too easy for potential employers to cast prejudices because we all change our opinions over the years as we mature.
The thieves are thieves, of course, and LexisNexis is not doing anything illegal, but sympathy for them is something, I just can't master.
I understand the sentiment. I've never had to deal with ID theft personally but it's not hard to imagine the pain in the ass it would be.
But I think it's easy to say for example, that two years jail is too leniant (as has been said a few times here). You need to temper your opinion by comparing the jailtime to some other violent crimes. Two years in jail would be hell for anyone when faced with the prospect for real.
The term 'beta' was bad usage by me, but if you comapred say MS Word 2.0 with the current version, you'd see that the features are so vastly different that it would make importing a real pain to code.
For a start, imagine some of the filthy hard-coded rubbish that was in the original Word products, and also imagine how badly the formats would have been tied to program architecture. Also things like the 64K memory bank limits for the old x86 architecture may have had consideration during file format design.
So many other things like fonts and the complexity of font-hinting, general changes in design philosophy, maintaining the old v2.0 importer and troubleshooting customers who are having problems importing.
Plus the fact that it is 10 years old. Even my TV/Entertainment system can't play media 10 or 15 years old.
only a 'webmaster' would deride having to program for different situation. Jeez, it's not hard at all.
Only someone who has never developed a multi-layered scalable html-interfaced system would hold that philosophy. Not to mention that HTML is now likely the most used language in the world.
Read about the methods MS used to embrace and extend Java a few years ago. You will quickly see the damage that even small deviations in software standards can do.
As a programmer I agree that it is wrong to complain about standards and other problems. Dealing with them is what we get paid for. But you must be aware of the 'game', otherwise you will suffer many problems when creating your own 'mini-standards' (which software creation consists of in a lot of ways).
I've never had any significant DLL problem with windows over the last 15 years of development and usage. I don't discount that other people suffer it, and I do understand the issues involved. But windows is not that bad with DLLs, especially in the newer versions.
One annoying DLL thing that I do remember from Win95/98 was the window that asked if you wish to keep a certain system DLL, because it was no longer in use. I always thought that was a bad question to ask non-technical users.
But I think your original comment was valid, because only flight simulator seems to be affected. If it really were just the old new-API-DLL-problem, you'd think more products would affected.
So the senator 'perhaps' takes bribes from 'astroturf' groups 'of some kind'. I agree, it is not flamebait. It is 'wild guesses about corruption for politicians you dislike'.
Riiight. Voters can't be arsed to show up once in four years to press a button, and when they manage to show up, they can't seem to be able to press the one they wanted.
Exactly. Voters are generally dumb so we should elect on their behalf. The last thing we want is citizens electing their representatives.
Any plan that requires voters to do anything (this includes any manner of thinking) will simply not work. It's just too easy to abuse.
Exactly again! We should remove all transparency because voters are too lazy to look at the information in the first place.
Maybe they need a factory worker edition, since factory workers need word processors, and make less money.
To me this would like forcing TV makers to do the same thing. Sell two TV sets, one priced for normal people and one priced at cost for factory workers.
My point is that we have a graduated tax system and minimum ranges to solve these types of class issues. Regulating company prices or even morally pressuring companies to do so, is actually immoral in my opinion.
Forward thinking is ALWAYS good... ignorantly acting on propoganda fed to you by someone with a hidden motive isn't.
Here's a tough one for that logic (still on the subject of Iraq):
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
Actually - the proposal that included moving to ODF as the official format also included continued use of MS Office as required until a full migration could be made for everyone.
I didn't read the article but if that is clearly true then the senator has zero case. His main argument is that people with disabilities will be affected, whereas the original proposal completely solved that problem.
A better slashdot article would have at least sought the senator's response to this fact that clearly contradicts his argument (even for laymen).
Not to that mention the technology Word was very immature 10 years ago. Even my own software products will not read formats for their own beta versions.
You can get it quite easily over many P2P networks and probably even via the different torrent "web sites" (IE: piratebay).
That is only true up to the time of widespread DRM implementation though, if it ends up working as promised.
While there will be some "poor" people who decide food/shelter are more important, I have seen (in my 12 years as a field technician) waaay too many of them buy a computer or, in many cases, obtain one from a family/friend that has upgraded, to shoot your "are too poor to afford" arguement.
That is a good point and also reflects my experience.
That being said, I would still like to see lower income earners a free PC and net connection. I feel it has become such a necessary thing in life that it should be given to poorer people by tax dollars.
I feel this way even as a Libertarian who desires minimal government. At the very least, the internet allows you to pay bills and interact with government agencys etc. without having to buy a car or pay for public transport to do it in person. There are even some small pollution benifits from that!
It's going to have 0 effect on the people they are supposedly trying to stop.
I'm not sure how you could come to such a baseless conclusion.
Even if it does somehow hamper that "real pirates" for lack of a better way to say it, those people aren't going to go out and pay for windows, they're going to pirate something else or use something that is legally free.
Pirates are a spectrum ranging from normal users who would rather keep the $50 to spend on beer, to people who truly can't afford the software. To say that they will all continue to pirate regardless of any inconvenience is to paint them as black or white.
It will, and does, at least in a small way affect the privacy of legal windows users and if the WGA required deal turns out to be true, steps on privacy even moreso and potentially costs legal, valid, users extra money.
By 'small privacy problems' you might mean 'unreasonably insignificant privacy problems', as I see no reasonable complaint of privacy.
As for costing legitimate users extra money I also do not see how.
So, no benefit to MS, no benefit to valid users, no harm to pirates, potential harm to valid users. Yeah, I can blame them.
- Benifits MS by reducing piracy, thus increasing sales.
- Harms pirates by preventing them from using the illegially obtained product.
- Does not harm licensed users any more than existing copy protection (ie. XP activation).
If you wish to blame anyone, blame the law makers (and so in turn the population who voted them in). They are the ones who allow companies to run in this fashion (moving towards software rental for example).
I personally have no problem with it, but you do seem to dislike the concept, and I do not deride you for that. But I do think you are blaming the wrong entity here.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's a great idea and only a matter of time before it's the main model. The possible income from that model is a magnitude smaller than traditional 30 second ads though.
That's not what this is- it's really a point defense system. Let's not confuse people any more than neccesary...
Yeh, because people are so much more familiar with 'point defense systems' than they are bubbles.
When you give you president dictatorial powers and have no oversight and no way of getting rid of a president during his term, you have put yourself at risk.
+4 insightful for this rubbish?
What happens when the law enforcement agencies are corrupt ...
Then we are fucked and need to fix the problem. There are many ways for cops to be corrupt, abusing access to server logs is one of many possible actions. Note that tried and tested mechanisms are in place to prevent police corruption, but that does not make them infallable.
What happens when a whole nation has gone insane?
Ok so give me any law you can think of. What happens when the country goes insane, or the police go corrupt? Law X doesn't work then does it. You are using an argument which really discounts any law you care to bring up.
As the GP post pointed out, law enforcement needs access to server logs for many valid reasons. There are even cases where access to such logs would save lives (yes, it could also kill lives in the hand of a corrupt force, but so could handguns in corrupt hands).
In the future I imagine most employers will do a google search for an applicant's name. If you consider how precarious it is to hire people based on a 40 minute conversation, that information could be pretty useful.
It makes it too easy for potential employers to cast prejudices because we all change our opinions over the years as we mature.
So 'Big Brother' secretly designed the internet so that it was client/server, wow!
However, people living in a 'free' society should have the option to speak annonimously if they so choose.
Except for conspiracy to crime etc.. And that is one of the main issues that makes truly anonymous speech so difficult.
The thieves are thieves, of course, and LexisNexis is not doing anything illegal, but sympathy for them is something, I just can't master.
I understand the sentiment. I've never had to deal with ID theft personally but it's not hard to imagine the pain in the ass it would be.
But I think it's easy to say for example, that two years jail is too leniant (as has been said a few times here). You need to temper your opinion by comparing the jailtime to some other violent crimes. Two years in jail would be hell for anyone when faced with the prospect for real.
I know, don't you hate it when rich people help put villans behind bars.
So when are the commercial privacy exploiters going to be held accountable?
When you hire a lawyer and sue them. You do have evidence that will hold up in court don't you?
Troll me if you want but it's been published.
Here you go. Pre-war link but I'm sure I'll still manage to score a few troll points.
The term 'beta' was bad usage by me, but if you comapred say MS Word 2.0 with the current version, you'd see that the features are so vastly different that it would make importing a real pain to code.
For a start, imagine some of the filthy hard-coded rubbish that was in the original Word products, and also imagine how badly the formats would have been tied to program architecture. Also things like the 64K memory bank limits for the old x86 architecture may have had consideration during file format design.
So many other things like fonts and the complexity of font-hinting, general changes in design philosophy, maintaining the old v2.0 importer and troubleshooting customers who are having problems importing.
Plus the fact that it is 10 years old. Even my TV/Entertainment system can't play media 10 or 15 years old.
only a 'webmaster' would deride having to program for different situation.
Jeez, it's not hard at all.
Only someone who has never developed a multi-layered scalable html-interfaced system would hold that philosophy. Not to mention that HTML is now likely the most used language in the world.
Read about the methods MS used to embrace and extend Java a few years ago. You will quickly see the damage that even small deviations in software standards can do.
As a programmer I agree that it is wrong to complain about standards and other problems. Dealing with them is what we get paid for. But you must be aware of the 'game', otherwise you will suffer many problems when creating your own 'mini-standards' (which software creation consists of in a lot of ways).
I've never had any significant DLL problem with windows over the last 15 years of development and usage. I don't discount that other people suffer it, and I do understand the issues involved. But windows is not that bad with DLLs, especially in the newer versions.
One annoying DLL thing that I do remember from Win95/98 was the window that asked if you wish to keep a certain system DLL, because it was no longer in use. I always thought that was a bad question to ask non-technical users.
But I think your original comment was valid, because only flight simulator seems to be affected. If it really were just the old new-API-DLL-problem, you'd think more products would affected.
Luckily, you didn't get moderated "flamebait" ...
So the senator 'perhaps' takes bribes from 'astroturf' groups 'of some kind'. I agree, it is not flamebait. It is 'wild guesses about corruption for politicians you dislike'.
Riiight. Voters can't be arsed to show up once in four years to press a button, and when they manage to show up, they can't seem to be able to press the one they wanted.
Exactly. Voters are generally dumb so we should elect on their behalf. The last thing we want is citizens electing their representatives.
Any plan that requires voters to do anything (this includes any manner of thinking) will simply not work. It's just too easy to abuse.
Exactly again! We should remove all transparency because voters are too lazy to look at the information in the first place.
Maybe they need a factory worker edition, since factory workers need word processors, and make less money.
To me this would like forcing TV makers to do the same thing. Sell two TV sets, one priced for normal people and one priced at cost for factory workers.
My point is that we have a graduated tax system and minimum ranges to solve these types of class issues. Regulating company prices or even morally pressuring companies to do so, is actually immoral in my opinion.
Sorry I get you. You are right, it is interesting of how such a 'threat' would be classed by the law.
If you consider two extremes such as:
1. I tell my friend in person that person X needs to be killed.
2. I broadcast to everyone that person X needs to be killed, but person X doesn't see it.
I get the feeling they would both be considered conspiracy to murder?
Forward thinking is ALWAYS good... ignorantly acting on propoganda fed to you by someone with a hidden motive isn't.
Here's a tough one for that logic (still on the subject of Iraq):
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
Source: CNN, a few years before the invasion.
Actually - the proposal that included moving to ODF as the official format also included continued use of MS Office as required until a full migration could be made for everyone.
I didn't read the article but if that is clearly true then the senator has zero case. His main argument is that people with disabilities will be affected, whereas the original proposal completely solved that problem.
A better slashdot article would have at least sought the senator's response to this fact that clearly contradicts his argument (even for laymen).
Not to that mention the technology Word was very immature 10 years ago. Even my own software products will not read formats for their own beta versions.
You can get it quite easily over many P2P networks and probably even via the different torrent "web sites" (IE: piratebay).
That is only true up to the time of widespread DRM implementation though, if it ends up working as promised.
While there will be some "poor" people who decide food/shelter are more important, I have seen (in my 12 years as a field technician) waaay too many of them buy a computer or, in many cases, obtain one from a family/friend that has upgraded, to shoot your "are too poor to afford" arguement.
That is a good point and also reflects my experience.
That being said, I would still like to see lower income earners a free PC and net connection. I feel it has become such a necessary thing in life that it should be given to poorer people by tax dollars.
I feel this way even as a Libertarian who desires minimal government. At the very least, the internet allows you to pay bills and interact with government agencys etc. without having to buy a car or pay for public transport to do it in person. There are even some small pollution benifits from that!
It's going to have 0 effect on the people they are supposedly trying to stop.
I'm not sure how you could come to such a baseless conclusion.
Even if it does somehow hamper that "real pirates" for lack of a better way to say it, those people aren't going to go out and pay for windows, they're going to pirate something else or use something that is legally free.
Pirates are a spectrum ranging from normal users who would rather keep the $50 to spend on beer, to people who truly can't afford the software. To say that they will all continue to pirate regardless of any inconvenience is to paint them as black or white.
It will, and does, at least in a small way affect the privacy of legal windows users and if the WGA required deal turns out to be true, steps on privacy even moreso and potentially costs legal, valid, users extra money.
By 'small privacy problems' you might mean 'unreasonably insignificant privacy problems', as I see no reasonable complaint of privacy.
As for costing legitimate users extra money I also do not see how.
So, no benefit to MS, no benefit to valid users, no harm to pirates, potential harm to valid users. Yeah, I can blame them.
- Benifits MS by reducing piracy, thus increasing sales.
- Harms pirates by preventing them from using the illegially obtained product.
- Does not harm licensed users any more than existing copy protection (ie. XP activation).
If you wish to blame anyone, blame the law makers (and so in turn the population who voted them in). They are the ones who allow companies to run in this fashion (moving towards software rental for example).
I personally have no problem with it, but you do seem to dislike the concept, and I do not deride you for that. But I do think you are blaming the wrong entity here.
Its a creative endeavor?
Are you asking me to come up with band names that would not be allowed? Because it is quite easy although not very tasteful to post.