Before you go acting like everyone is a moron, you should read the post carefully and then check the facts. I didn't say we couldn't set cookies, but we can't get the cookies. We can set cookies all damn day, but unless we are in a 1st party context, we will never see them.
Yep, this really sucks for third party ad serving companies (like mine). The shitty thing is, it doesn't matter if we implement p3p on our systems or not, we will still get blocked from our cookies, because the default setting doesn't allow 3rd party cookies. (and who in the world is going to relax that?) We (as a industry segment, not just individual companies) have complained to MS about this and their response has been pretty lame. It is really easy for them to redirect their people to their website, but that isn't feasable to everyone else.
I know what some will say, that finially these advertisers are getting what they deserve, and I don't totally disagree, but keep in mind, that (I don't know about other comanines, well, yes I do, but that is totaly someone else) we don't do anything "bad" with the cookies we collect. We don't sell personally identifiable data, etc. We have one of (I don't know of a better one) the best privacy policies in the industry. If everyone just decided that they didn't want 3rd party cookies, that would be one thing, but they haven't, because most people don't mind, as it doesn't hurt anyone. We don't deserve for our business to get impacted this much because of some arbitrary decision made by those people.
I'm not totally sure that this is a fair comparison. Most of it is just fine, but when comaring installation and hardware compatibility, of course OSX has an advantage, but this advantage comes at a high price.
When you buy a computer to run OSX, you only have 1 choice of a vendor (do Apple clones still exist?), so of course the OS is going to be engineered to a specific set of hardware. That way, you don't need to worry about hardware drivers, as you have everything you need in the OS. (or at least distributed with the OS)
On the other hand, with windows machines, you have your choice of hundreds of vendors, and thousands of configurations, all having different hardware configurations. This makes it hard on the OS to set up and install.
I think I would rather trade a bit of difficulty of instaltion, etc. for some flexibility. (hey, isn't that why I installed Linux? yeah!)
I hardly think that win2k and OSX are "the Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson of the operating system world". They are lightweights. That is compared to an OS/390 system. Compared to that, UNIX systems on AIX (12 processor SAs) are considered "mid range" systems.
I guess they are the heavyweights of the PC-style architecture, but not of OSes in general.
Perhaps not, being southern myself, I tend to think that is a bit funnier, as it is more akin to making fun of one's self, instead of making fun of someone else. Is it any better? not really.
I think there is plenty of discrimination against southern white folk outside of the deep south. Is it as bad as what was done to black folks in the past 300 years? of course not, so it doesn't seem as bad.
Enough rhetorical questions for you? I didn't think so.
I used to work in a company that uses Lotus Notes for email (among other uses). It's not all that great as a mail reader, but it did have a nice little feature build-in. It had encryption and signing. It was totally transparent to the user. Everyone that had an id in the system (it was a centralized system) had a public/private key. You could use this to sign and/or encrypt your email.
I don't know how this would have stood up to a decent cracking attempt, but it was fun.
Hell, I used to hear of this sort of thing when we used to play D&D in highschool. My mom got real scared, thinking that I would turn into some killing machine because of it. I guess it made the game more exciting.
I understand what MS is doing and why, but what I don't get is how is why/how they are getting away with it.
What he says about Linux/GPL is totaly untrue. My company uses gcc, gdb, etc., but does that mean that our code has to be free software? nope.
It seems to me that if said what he said about some other company, they would get sued for libel. And I think the other company would come out pretty well, as it wouldn't be too hard to show damages.
Maybe they are getting away with it (so far) because there isn't one company to sue them? I guess any company who's business is based on Linux and/or GPL software could sue? (RedHat, etc.)
This is interesting, but is it really a strict comparison between closed and open source?
This is just an example of bad business practices. In fact, I think that any customer should expect better than this. Not to mention that doing this sort of thing is a huge legal liability, thus not done by many companies, either by the feeling of "fair-play" or just cya.
Just because an external firm reported the bug, it doesn't follow that only a closed source company would be able to bury/hide it. Perhaps the chances are lower that an open source product would get away with it, but it isn't a foregone conclusion that by definition, an open source product couldn't/wouldn't do the same thing.
I never said that I was defending M$ here, just bringing up what I thought was an interesting topic.;-)
> Well, you'd be surprised how much custom
> software there is.
Probably not. I didn't say there wasn't much custom software, I just said that (IMHO) software isn't *required* to be custom. How many companies have reinvented the wheel and developed their own [fill in the blank] system because they were just too lazy to figure out how an "off-the-shelf" system would fit into their buisness process? I worked for one company in particular that never really seemd to think about "buy vs. build", they always built it. I guess they thought that they were the only buisness in the world that did what they did.
> if I already have a word processor and it does
> everything I need, why would I want to pay for
> it again?
For instance, when I work on, say, an accounting program for company X, for which I am employed, I am not actually doing accounting work (a service), I am writing a program that allows someone else to do that service.
Thus, I am producing a product that company X uses and counts as an asset. Yes, it may not be externally marketed, but it is still a product.
>If you want to see through walls, fine:
>It makes playing games lame, but thats your choice.
Same with spawn camping. It's a stupid tactic, and it isn't very fun to do, but it really makes the game suck for everyone else. Some people have too much time on their hands, why should the game suck for me?
>How do you think accountants, lawyers or
>architetcts get paid? They are paid for their
>advice, their professionalism and their
>knowledge. Do you think you visit your
>lawyer to "buy" a contract?
true, because I can't take a contract that one lawyer drew up for me and apply it to another situation. They are written for a particular situation and isn't useful for anything after that. Same thing for an accountant with my taxes, even though it is pretty much the same thing next year, I still have to have an accountant run through it again because it is different.
This is because what you decribe are mostly services. Software is mostly a product. The only way to get paid for a product is to sell it, thus to get money from it. If I am forced to give it away for free, I don't get paid, thus I don't eat.
This is because usually (there are exceptions) software isn't required to be custom, and so it is applicable to other situations. Take a word processor. If it is available on the web for free (and legal), why would anyone pay me to write one for them?
I mostly disagree with the M$ view here, as do most folks here. But, there is an issue that I have been thinking about that they may have a point about:
I am a software engineer, so I write software for a living. So the company that I work for sells the software, or uses the software in the product that they sell, thus they pay me. If I work on GPL code in my spare time, I don't get paid for it, thus I call it a hobby.
But what if the only software in the world were GPL or in some other way free? How would I get paid? I understand that there is some money to be made with free software, like support, etc. But what about people that write software for a living? What will I do to pay my house/car payment? If I can get paid more by digging ditches than writing code, will I use my time to write code? nope, I will dig ditches or whatever that will pay the bills. Writing code for GPL projects is fun, but it doesn't pay the bills. The only reason I can afford to do this is because someone else pays me to write other software (non-free software that is).
So now I have no reason to write software all day. I dig ditches instead. That is the death of innovation, nobody (not just me) will write software.
It seems to me that free software only works because non-free software exists. If noone were paying programmers, there wouldn't be very many programmers around, thus noone would be working on GPL-like projects.
Am I way off base here? I have never heard anything that really answered this question for me. Maybe it belongs in "Ask Slashdot".
Also, people (myself included) said the same thing about 1.44MB floppies, but it turned out to be a great stop-gap measure until better stuff came out, like zip disks, and CD-(R|RW).
That being said, I probably won't buy one until I see it done by other manufactures.
Also, do better in life. I am sure that those people will work very tough if they skate through in school. What the hell are those people there for anyway? to please their parents?
Eventually, you have to sink or swim, if you cheat your way through school, what do you think your chances are?
And to you that is bitter about your class mates cheating their way through: don't worry about it, they will wish they hadn't done it. I have found that cheating and lazyness is their own punishment.
The lawyer smoothly dodged the
questions by saying that movie studios could (not "would," but "could")
publish works in unencrypted form when (if) their copyright on the work
ever expires, or perhaps someone could use a decryption device then, since
it would no longer be illegal under the DMCA to do so. The judge asked
where those encryption devices would be, after all, they've been banned by
the DMCA. The lawyer had faith that they would appear.
Lets see, so using that line or reasoning, as soon as a CSS dvd copyright expired, DeCSS will then become legal? ridiculous.
The only question to ask here is: is America still a free society? If so, then there is nothing really to debate, is there?
Until the people decide (the only body allowed to decide, according to the constitution) en masse that they want to change from a free society to a police-state, run by corps with lots of money, then there really isn't anything to debate here, is there?
I think it is ludicrous to believe that this is what the people of this nation would want: to give up freedom so some out dated, over advertising, overbearing corporation can sell us something we don't really need: their prepackaged version of somebody else's idea of art.
The only thing that is needed to produce real art is the artist and the consumer, in this case the listener. Most everything else is excess baggage. Some extra things are required (like a media, player, etc.), things that enable this tranmission of art. Other things, like the RIAA, et al. are not needed, in fact they hinder art, thus need to be eliminated.
This type of thing will never stop happening until we recognize, as a society, that our children are not second class citizens. Why is it that you only become deserving of constitutional protections (and responsibilities) when you are out of high school (or even college, if you go)?
Someone needs to take this type of thing to court. Maybe it will require the supreme court before anything happens. Yes, it will raise some difficult questions as to the rights of adults opposed to children (also a parent's rights), but those need to be answered.
Why is there so much anger in children of this age? I don't have a complete answer, but I feel very strongly that this has something to do with it.
I don't know if this is the right case for the court test-case, and I don't know if the father here is prepared for the fight, or the consequences involved. But until this happens, this type of CYA behavior from school systems will continue. Not only this type of crap, but the book banning, the student publication censorship, etc.
I just don't see why our society wants to treat children like shit, and then expect them to behave like a normal citizen, when we don't teach them to be by our actions.
Slashdot Mirror
Before you go acting like everyone is a moron, you should read the post carefully and then check the facts. I didn't say we couldn't set cookies, but we can't get the cookies. We can set cookies all damn day, but unless we are in a 1st party context, we will never see them.
you see that flag because nobody has changed their site to support p3p yet.
On your site, you put headers like this:
P3P: {url to xml describing your p3p policy}, CP="xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx"
The "CP" part is the compact version, but that is optional.
HTH
Yep, this really sucks for third party ad serving companies (like mine). The shitty thing is, it doesn't matter if we implement p3p on our systems or not, we will still get blocked from our cookies, because the default setting doesn't allow 3rd party cookies. (and who in the world is going to relax that?) We (as a industry segment, not just individual companies) have complained to MS about this and their response has been pretty lame. It is really easy for them to redirect their people to their website, but that isn't feasable to everyone else.
I know what some will say, that finially these advertisers are getting what they deserve, and I don't totally disagree, but keep in mind, that (I don't know about other comanines, well, yes I do, but that is totaly someone else) we don't do anything "bad" with the cookies we collect. We don't sell personally identifiable data, etc. We have one of (I don't know of a better one) the best privacy policies in the industry. If everyone just decided that they didn't want 3rd party cookies, that would be one thing, but they haven't, because most people don't mind, as it doesn't hurt anyone. We don't deserve for our business to get impacted this much because of some arbitrary decision made by those people.
Oh, well, enough of this ranting.
I'm not totally sure that this is a fair comparison. Most of it is just fine, but when comaring installation and hardware compatibility, of course OSX has an advantage, but this advantage comes at a high price.
When you buy a computer to run OSX, you only have 1 choice of a vendor (do Apple clones still exist?), so of course the OS is going to be engineered to a specific set of hardware. That way, you don't need to worry about hardware drivers, as you have everything you need in the OS. (or at least distributed with the OS)
On the other hand, with windows machines, you have your choice of hundreds of vendors, and thousands of configurations, all having different hardware configurations. This makes it hard on the OS to set up and install.
I think I would rather trade a bit of difficulty of instaltion, etc. for some flexibility. (hey, isn't that why I installed Linux? yeah!)
I hardly think that win2k and OSX are "the Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson of the operating system world". They are lightweights. That is compared to an OS/390 system. Compared to that, UNIX systems on AIX (12 processor SAs) are considered "mid range" systems.
I guess they are the heavyweights of the PC-style architecture, but not of OSes in general.
Perhaps not, being southern myself, I tend to think that is a bit funnier, as it is more akin to making fun of one's self, instead of making fun of someone else. Is it any better? not really.
I think there is plenty of discrimination against southern white folk outside of the deep south. Is it as bad as what was done to black folks in the past 300 years? of course not, so it doesn't seem as bad.
Enough rhetorical questions for you? I didn't think so.
I know what that is, but it doens't change anything.
I didn't mention "people of color". Where did you get that idea?
I used to work in a company that uses Lotus Notes for email (among other uses). It's not all that great as a mail reader, but it did have a nice little feature build-in. It had encryption and signing. It was totally transparent to the user. Everyone that had an id in the system (it was a centralized system) had a public/private key. You could use this to sign and/or encrypt your email.
I don't know how this would have stood up to a decent cracking attempt, but it was fun.
...And then the "behemoth software company" sues you for $98,000,000, plus damages, court costs, etc. They can't loose.
Wow, you're right, that was much better.
Hell, I used to hear of this sort of thing when we used to play D&D in highschool. My mom got real scared, thinking that I would turn into some killing machine because of it. I guess it made the game more exciting.
I understand what MS is doing and why, but what I don't get is how is why/how they are getting away with it.
What he says about Linux/GPL is totaly untrue. My company uses gcc, gdb, etc., but does that mean that our code has to be free software? nope.
It seems to me that if said what he said about some other company, they would get sued for libel. And I think the other company would come out pretty well, as it wouldn't be too hard to show damages.
Maybe they are getting away with it (so far) because there isn't one company to sue them? I guess any company who's business is based on Linux and/or GPL software could sue? (RedHat, etc.)
This is interesting, but is it really a strict comparison between closed and open source?
This is just an example of bad business practices. In fact, I think that any customer should expect better than this. Not to mention that doing this sort of thing is a huge legal liability, thus not done by many companies, either by the feeling of "fair-play" or just cya.
Just because an external firm reported the bug, it doesn't follow that only a closed source company would be able to bury/hide it. Perhaps the chances are lower that an open source product would get away with it, but it isn't a foregone conclusion that by definition, an open source product couldn't/wouldn't do the same thing.
> Microsoft disagrees with you here.
;-)
I never said that I was defending M$ here, just bringing up what I thought was an interesting topic.
> Well, you'd be surprised how much custom
> software there is.
Probably not. I didn't say there wasn't much custom software, I just said that (IMHO) software isn't *required* to be custom. How many companies have reinvented the wheel and developed their own [fill in the blank] system because they were just too lazy to figure out how an "off-the-shelf" system would fit into their buisness process? I worked for one company in particular that never really seemd to think about "buy vs. build", they always built it. I guess they thought that they were the only buisness in the world that did what they did.
> if I already have a word processor and it does
> everything I need, why would I want to pay for
> it again?
Very true, sorry for the bad example.
Wrong there.
For instance, when I work on, say, an accounting program for company X, for which I am employed, I am not actually doing accounting work (a service), I am writing a program that allows someone else to do that service.
Thus, I am producing a product that company X uses and counts as an asset. Yes, it may not be externally marketed, but it is still a product.
#1, the answer is no, they wouldn't be put off.
#2, Hire me.
>If you want to see through walls, fine:
>It makes playing games lame, but thats your choice.
Same with spawn camping. It's a stupid tactic, and it isn't very fun to do, but it really makes the game suck for everyone else. Some people have too much time on their hands, why should the game suck for me?
>How do you think accountants, lawyers or
>architetcts get paid? They are paid for their
>advice, their professionalism and their
>knowledge. Do you think you visit your
>lawyer to "buy" a contract?
true, because I can't take a contract that one lawyer drew up for me and apply it to another situation. They are written for a particular situation and isn't useful for anything after that. Same thing for an accountant with my taxes, even though it is pretty much the same thing next year, I still have to have an accountant run through it again because it is different.
This is because what you decribe are mostly services. Software is mostly a product. The only way to get paid for a product is to sell it, thus to get money from it. If I am forced to give it away for free, I don't get paid, thus I don't eat.
This is because usually (there are exceptions) software isn't required to be custom, and so it is applicable to other situations. Take a word processor. If it is available on the web for free (and legal), why would anyone pay me to write one for them?
I mostly disagree with the M$ view here, as do most folks here. But, there is an issue that I have been thinking about that they may have a point about:
I am a software engineer, so I write software for a living. So the company that I work for sells the software, or uses the software in the product that they sell, thus they pay me. If I work on GPL code in my spare time, I don't get paid for it, thus I call it a hobby.
But what if the only software in the world were GPL or in some other way free? How would I get paid? I understand that there is some money to be made with free software, like support, etc. But what about people that write software for a living? What will I do to pay my house/car payment? If I can get paid more by digging ditches than writing code, will I use my time to write code? nope, I will dig ditches or whatever that will pay the bills. Writing code for GPL projects is fun, but it doesn't pay the bills. The only reason I can afford to do this is because someone else pays me to write other software (non-free software that is).
So now I have no reason to write software all day. I dig ditches instead. That is the death of innovation, nobody (not just me) will write software.
It seems to me that free software only works because non-free software exists. If noone were paying programmers, there wouldn't be very many programmers around, thus noone would be working on GPL-like projects.
Am I way off base here? I have never heard anything that really answered this question for me. Maybe it belongs in "Ask Slashdot".
It is standard, so maybe it not so "dead-end".
Also, people (myself included) said the same thing about 1.44MB floppies, but it turned out to be a great stop-gap measure until better stuff came out, like zip disks, and CD-(R|RW).
That being said, I probably won't buy one until I see it done by other manufactures.
Is there really justice in the world?
I guess so.
Also, do better in life. I am sure that those people will work very tough if they skate through in school. What the hell are those people there for anyway? to please their parents?
Eventually, you have to sink or swim, if you cheat your way through school, what do you think your chances are?
And to you that is bitter about your class mates cheating their way through: don't worry about it, they will wish they hadn't done it. I have found that cheating and lazyness is their own punishment.
Lets see, so using that line or reasoning, as soon as a CSS dvd copyright expired, DeCSS will then become legal? ridiculous.
Until the people decide (the only body allowed to decide, according to the constitution) en masse that they want to change from a free society to a police-state, run by corps with lots of money, then there really isn't anything to debate here, is there?
I think it is ludicrous to believe that this is what the people of this nation would want: to give up freedom so some out dated, over advertising, overbearing corporation can sell us something we don't really need: their prepackaged version of somebody else's idea of art.
The only thing that is needed to produce real art is the artist and the consumer, in this case the listener. Most everything else is excess baggage. Some extra things are required (like a media, player, etc.), things that enable this tranmission of art. Other things, like the RIAA, et al. are not needed, in fact they hinder art, thus need to be eliminated.
This type of thing will never stop happening until we recognize, as a society, that our children are not second class citizens. Why is it that you only become deserving of constitutional protections (and responsibilities) when you are out of high school (or even college, if you go)?
Someone needs to take this type of thing to court. Maybe it will require the supreme court before anything happens. Yes, it will raise some difficult questions as to the rights of adults opposed to children (also a parent's rights), but those need to be answered.
Why is there so much anger in children of this age? I don't have a complete answer, but I feel very strongly that this has something to do with it.
I don't know if this is the right case for the court test-case, and I don't know if the father here is prepared for the fight, or the consequences involved. But until this happens, this type of CYA behavior from school systems will continue. Not only this type of crap, but the book banning, the student publication censorship, etc.
I just don't see why our society wants to treat children like shit, and then expect them to behave like a normal citizen, when we don't teach them to be by our actions.