I once had a candidate call me and ask about a job that was advertised. I was the hiring manager for the position, which made me the chairman of the search committee. The candidate said, "I was thinking about applying for the job, and my experience looks like a good match, but I have no degree. How serious are you about the degree requirement?" I explained that if the degree requirement was enforceable, meaning we found a very good candidate who also had a degree, then the degree requirement would be enforced. On the other hand, I was not going to be limited to hiring the second or third best candidate just to enforce the requirement -- at that point, I would rather make an exception. If you want to find out what we will do, you must be willing to print a resume and invest 32 cents for a stamp. The worst we can do is say no.
The same US software companies that are already offshoring heavily will be forced into even more draconian measures to counteract Open Source? Somebody seems to have missed the fact that a lack of competition is what drove most of the logic that quality of product and service was irrelevant, and therefore cutting costs was universally good.
If these companies are now on the losing side of competing with free, that is just dandy as far as I am concerned. In fact, I'm having a hard time finding the downside of this.
In reality, the savings of offshore operations could shift the prices of software down to the point where the price would cease to be a factor. However, the quality, standards compliance, and community support by knowledgeable people is a real problem for those who have sacrificed everything to achieve savings.
I remember when our VMS software development staff had VAXstations. The damn things cost $15,000 each and they took 30 minutes to boot, but you could leave them running 24x7 for months on end.
Eventually we replaced the VAXstations with high-end PCs. Of course the developers left them running overnight, and Dr. Watson was a frequent visitor. I had developers walking into my office saying, "My machine just crashed! Can you have one of your systems people read the crash dump and find the problem?" Nobody wanted to believe that the machines had to be shut down at the end of the day, and crashes were to be expected. When a VMS machine (server or workstation) crashed, it was either a software bug that was fixed by installing a patch, or (more often) it was a hardware problem that would be fixed by DEC field service. There was no such thing as ignoring the problem and rebooting because whatever happened would soon happen again.
Maybe it is a good thing servers don't have to cost $500,000 each. On the other hand, Windows is a joke for high-uptime environments. I can't help but laugh when I see the funny things sysadmins have to do in order to keep a Windows box online.
"The [flaw] Sasser expoloited was patched before it came out.
I don't think so. The problem goes all the way back to NT 4.0, and knowledge of the basic flaw goes back at least several months. Yes, the patch was issued before there was a massive outbreak, but this flaw may have been quietly exploited on a smaller scale for years.
I agree that MS market share means Windows gets more attention from the hacker community. Therefore the people who use Windows have to be prepared to stay on top of the patches even more than the people whose OS is less frequently targeted. Those who are not prepared to do this should use something else. If Windows users properly defended their systems, some of them would migrate to other platforms instead of wasting time on 3 reboots per week. Others would stand their ground, and promptly install the patches. The end game would be fewer Windows viruses because of fewer clueless people acting as easy targets. The hackers would not be writing so many Windows worms if they were not so incredibly sucessful in deploying them! The behavior that is rewarded will be repeated.
Apple is the most successful of the online retailers. Without Apple, essentially ALL downloading would be free P2P. If Apple says, "We will pay what we choose to pay. If you don't like it, we won't distribute your product.", what can the recording companies do about it? Their only real alternative is to lose even more money. Somehow I doubt the I-Tunes users are going to flock to competitors, certainly not the competitors who pay royalties.
Apple must have known about the sleazy tactics of the recording industry before going into this business, surely they would have had a plan to deal with problems like this.
I admit that the security issues of Windows are so well known, that using it is like leaving a car unlocked with the key in the ignition. Then we park the car in a bad neighborhood (hooked up to the Internet), and wonder why it gets stolen (infected) in 30 seconds. Yes, the IT people should have known better, and perhaps they should be replaced. On the other hand, Windows is still the path of least resistance in some ways. Legacy apps, legacy IT staff, clueless users, the obstacles to progress are numerous. We can't unplug everyone from the Matrix all at the same time!
To me, the main problem is complacency. There is an entire generation of users and IT staff that simply accept the shortcomings of Windows, believing that this is the way computers work -- BSOD, spyware, the virus du jour, mysterious anomalies every day.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 65,536 times, shame on the people who hired me.
1. Usenet. Check out Google Groups. Search not only for the name of the company, but also names of key managers, even the company phone number. Be on the lookout for adverse commentary. Don't assume it's true, but look for trends and things that can be proven or disproven. You can't rely on Usenet any more than you can rely on Slashdot, but it sure helps you ask intelligent questions.
Thanks to the Google Groups, a Usenet posting can act as the "atomic bomb" of employment relations. Web pages come and go, but a historical search engine never forgets. Imagine the possibilities.
2. Web stuff; same as above -- get creative with the search contents. Google, Dogpile, The wayback machine Be on the lookout for "protest pages". I have occasionally hit the jackpot with searches that revealed fact-filled protest pages. Well worth a look. Try finding previous employers of the key managers and investigate those companies as well.
3. In the US, you can check places like bbb.org for a history of business complaints. Also try state dept. of consumer protection. The secretary of state will generally have corporate registration data that can be of interest. In some states, you can visit the judicial department online and search for civil cases involving the employer in question. Are they suing anyone? Is anyone suing them?
OK, it took 1000 machines and 3 months for this particular example. The task is not impossible, and there are people who really can get their hands on 1000 machines.
If the goal is personal security, I agree that the average credit card hacker is not going to make the investment. On the other hand, the NSA has the hardware resources to attack on a grand scale, with perhaps even better algorithms.
It will be a while before RIAA and MPAA can hijack NSA resources to pursue P2P users, so I guess we ARE still safe for a while.
IMHO, the issue of dumping or keeping SCO's Unix products is a smokescreen. Just like the "problems" Baystar has with SCO senior management. Whoever is really driving the deal has somehow convinced Baystar to give SCO a chance to avoid redemption.
Nobody knows what motivated Baystar, but now they need to set the stage for SCO to do something -- anything that can be declared a Baystar victory. Manufacture a problem, scream for a solution, cancel redemption. Any problem and any solution will do.
Another conspiracy theory is that SCOX will sell it's non-controversial products at an inflated price to MSFT, thus facilitating the next "round" of funding. After all, they "had to" unload these unprofitable lines of business because Baystar said so.
Baystar requests redemption just to shake up SCO management? If they didn't like Darl, why did they give him the money in the first place?
The SCO management team is the same one that existed when the deal was made. SCO products are the same. Other than adding litigation as a line of business, they are the same company that existed at the time of the PIPE deal.
Redemption is an extreme action on Baystar's part, and I don't buy their explanation that the only problem is now SCO's senior management and their non-litigation products. Whatever the real reason is, this is NOT it.
I think MSFT is at it again, lobbying Baystar to give SCO a chance to avoid redemption, in exchange for ?????? This whole concept of "Make a few changes and you can keep the money" is 100% bogus.
Do everything with great deliberation and extreme detail. Leave not a single bit of code without a comprehensive description. If your management has done it's job as they see it, you are probably training a low-cost/low-skill person. All the training in the world isn't going to make up for the experience they lack. There are three goals:
Get the training period extended, because it's taking longer than expected. After all, you are doing a very thorough job.
Create a positive impression with management, for purposes of karma and references.
Set the stage for a very pricey consulting gig when the replacement fails due to skill or language difficulty.
If it's of any consolation: the next wave of offshoring will be tougher on the accounting/finance people, as their line of work is usually an overhead cost, highly regulated (and therefore standardized), just begging for offshore outsourcing.br> Remember: the cost of recovering a train wreck is far more than the cost of the train or its cargo.
Can anyone really become invisible to stalkers just because they have a bogus WHOIS record? Any stalker worth his salt can track people from any one of hundreds of publicly accessible databases and grab all kinds of information. How much data can you really keep private? Registering a domain is a quasi-public act that results in loss of privacy, similar to what happens when you buy a car. Nobody makes you buy a car. But if you choose to do it, alot of people can easily find who you are and what you bought.
You mentioned pointing your domains at your old address. In some databases, that would be enough to help a stalker. I can think of at least one easily accessible place where knowing a person's name and previous residence would reveal their age and possibly their current town and state.
If online anonymity is the goal, I would opt for a dynamic IP address, such as my dyndns.org, with throwaway e-mail accounts (Hotmail, ICQ, etc.) for those times when you must publish an e-mail address.
Actually, I'm more concerned with the spam. Some if it is obviously the result of WHOIS harvesting.
You raise an interesting point. DRM is always going to be hackable, so let's look at the incentives.
"Unlimited burns + no expiration + multiple devices + multiple computers = Not worth the trouble"
As you say, not much incentive to hack if you can do what you want with the downloads. Notice that this supports the theory that hacking DRM has nothing to do with "stealing" music; the real motivation is to defeat the crippling restrictions on usage.
Microsoft + expiration date + music drm = another hacker victory
1. The hardware is locked down, X-box style. Hardware manufacturing is a capital-intensive business. It will not manufacture itself, nor will anyone develop faster/better hardware for free.
2. Software companies pay the hardware manufacturers to lock down the boxes, which are either sold or rented at subsidized prices to the customer/victims. The whole concept is to quietly deploy DRM while loudly advertising the subsidized pricing.
3. Visually "designing" an app involves nothing more than choosing the location of toolbars and buttons on IE.
4. The new PCs are little more than launching platforms for an "MS Office appliance". A fair number of PCs out there exist for the sole purpose of running office. Office is the portion of the M$ empire that is hardest for OSS to elimintate.
So it all comes down to this: Bill wants to get people focused on saving money via cheap hardware, because he can subsidize that in the short run and lock out competitors in the long run.
The "Net PC" had this kind of business model. It failed. Those who fail to understand history are condemned to repeat it.
I agree; no way will the Feds cave in. Same logic as IBM: "If we pay these clowns, thousands more will be on our doorsteps tomorrow for their handout". Besides, the money to fight this battle is not part of any agency's budget -- the Feds have infinite cash to fight this, just as they do when fighting a war. Say whatever you like about Iraq, but this is one war we can all support!
Forget marketing, it is the install/config process that makes Linux products hard to sell. Let's face it, Linux assumes that a reasonably skilled sysadmin is sitting at the controls. Windows assumes that the sysadmin can be relied upon to click "Yes", "Next", "OK", and "Finish".
Package installers go only so far. Progress has been made regarding dependencies and cascading installations, but I see room for improvement. I find many products still require the "./configure ; make ; make install" method.
The people who write the code are hard-pressed to consider every possible Linux distro or hardware/software environment. Poor documentation doesn't help. We get away with it on the server side, but this will not work with embedded systems or desktops, where you don't have a sysadmin ready to hack the install. If I am buying a product, I expect the install to be smooth and trouble-free. If I have to sit and hack, I might as well stick with free stuff or write it myself.
Don't get me wrong, Linux products are great, once they are installed. Proprietary products are easy to install, but it's all downhill from there.
Most of the ribbons ran in a perpetual loop, no rewinding involved. After some number of runs (2 or 3?), the characters would fade and it was time for a new ribbon (or 3 more ink drops on the felt pad.) The ribbons all had a little knob, but that was merely to take up tension and advance the ribbon. If you were twisting the knob thinking it was rewinding the ribbon (and extending it's life), the joke's on you!
The Okidata 8x and 9x series were real beasts; far and away the most rugged printers I ever saw. They used spools that were compatible with typewriter ribbons. In fact, you could install a typewriter ribbon and it worked! The print head allegedly needed some kind of lubrication that was built into the genuine Oki ribbons. Now that I think of it, the ribbons had a little eyelet that caught a lever so as to reverse the ribbon direction. The printers were fairly expensive, but the ribbons (even the genuine ones) were cheap.
Panasonic had a neat little gimmick. Their ribbons were very expensive, but they had an ink reserve; you could push a button on the cartridge and it would use its ink reserve to start re-inking itself. That trick only worked once; after you did it, you were supposed to go buy another ribbon.
Back in the days when dot matrix was the only game in town, ribbons were exhorbitantly priced, with little "features" to ensure a revenue stream to the manufacturer. The first workaround was ribbon re-inkers. You could place a little block of felt near the ribbon intake and put a few drops of ink onto the felt every so often. Ultimately, generic knock-offs solved most of the problem.
I will keep my old stuff for as long as it works. When I am confronted with HDTV crippleware, it's time to get rid of TV altogether. There isn't any problem MPAA can create that I can't solve with the power switch.
These MPAA people are determined to follow in the footsteps of RIAA. Crappy content, obnoxious protection, struggling for more and more control over media that has less and less content. Pretty soon they will control 100% of nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
I once had a candidate call me and ask about a job that was advertised. I was the hiring manager for the position, which made me the chairman of the search committee. The candidate said, "I was thinking about applying for the job, and my experience looks like a good match, but I have no degree. How serious are you about the degree requirement?" I explained that if the degree requirement was enforceable, meaning we found a very good candidate who also had a degree, then the degree requirement would be enforced. On the other hand, I was not going to be limited to hiring the second or third best candidate just to enforce the requirement -- at that point, I would rather make an exception. If you want to find out what we will do, you must be willing to print a resume and invest 32 cents for a stamp. The worst we can do is say no.
The same US software companies that are already offshoring heavily will be forced into even more draconian measures to counteract Open Source? Somebody seems to have missed the fact that a lack of competition is what drove most of the logic that quality of product and service was irrelevant, and therefore cutting costs was universally good.
If these companies are now on the losing side of competing with free, that is just dandy as far as I am concerned. In fact, I'm having a hard time finding the downside of this.
In reality, the savings of offshore operations could shift the prices of software down to the point where the price would cease to be a factor. However, the quality, standards compliance, and community support by knowledgeable people is a real problem for those who have sacrificed everything to achieve savings.
I remember when our VMS software development staff had VAXstations. The damn things cost $15,000 each and they took 30 minutes to boot, but you could leave them running 24x7 for months on end.
Eventually we replaced the VAXstations with high-end PCs. Of course the developers left them running overnight, and Dr. Watson was a frequent visitor. I had developers walking into my office saying, "My machine just crashed! Can you have one of your systems people read the crash dump and find the problem?" Nobody wanted to believe that the machines had to be shut down at the end of the day, and crashes were to be expected. When a VMS machine (server or workstation) crashed, it was either a software bug that was fixed by installing a patch, or (more often) it was a hardware problem that would be fixed by DEC field service. There was no such thing as ignoring the problem and rebooting because whatever happened would soon happen again.
Maybe it is a good thing servers don't have to cost $500,000 each. On the other hand, Windows is a joke for high-uptime environments. I can't help but laugh when I see the funny things sysadmins have to do in order to keep a Windows box online.
"The [flaw] Sasser expoloited was patched before it came out.
I don't think so. The problem goes all the way back to NT 4.0, and knowledge of the basic flaw goes back at least several months. Yes, the patch was issued before there was a massive outbreak, but this flaw may have been quietly exploited on a smaller scale for years.
I agree that MS market share means Windows gets more attention from the hacker community. Therefore the people who use Windows have to be prepared to stay on top of the patches even more than the people whose OS is less frequently targeted. Those who are not prepared to do this should use something else. If Windows users properly defended their systems, some of them would migrate to other platforms instead of wasting time on 3 reboots per week. Others would stand their ground, and promptly install the patches. The end game would be fewer Windows viruses because of fewer clueless people acting as easy targets. The hackers would not be writing so many Windows worms if they were not so incredibly sucessful in deploying them! The behavior that is rewarded will be repeated.
Apple is the most successful of the online retailers. Without Apple, essentially ALL downloading would be free P2P. If Apple says, "We will pay what we choose to pay. If you don't like it, we won't distribute your product.", what can the recording companies do about it? Their only real alternative is to lose even more money. Somehow I doubt the I-Tunes users are going to flock to competitors, certainly not the competitors who pay royalties.
Apple must have known about the sleazy tactics of the recording industry before going into this business, surely they would have had a plan to deal with problems like this.
I partially disagree.
I admit that the security issues of Windows are so well known, that using it is like leaving a car unlocked with the key in the ignition. Then we park the car in a bad neighborhood (hooked up to the Internet), and wonder why it gets stolen (infected) in 30 seconds. Yes, the IT people should have known better, and perhaps they should be replaced. On the other hand, Windows is still the path of least resistance in some ways. Legacy apps, legacy IT staff, clueless users, the obstacles to progress are numerous. We can't unplug everyone from the Matrix all at the same time!
To me, the main problem is complacency. There is an entire generation of users and IT staff that simply accept the shortcomings of Windows, believing that this is the way computers work -- BSOD, spyware, the virus du jour, mysterious anomalies every day.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 65,536 times, shame on the people who hired me.
1. Usenet. Check out Google Groups. Search not only for the name of the company, but also names of key managers, even the company phone number. Be on the lookout for adverse commentary. Don't assume it's true, but look for trends and things that can be proven or disproven. You can't rely on Usenet any more than you can rely on Slashdot, but it sure helps you ask intelligent questions.
Thanks to the Google Groups, a Usenet posting can
act as the "atomic bomb" of employment relations. Web pages come and go, but a historical search engine never forgets. Imagine the possibilities.
2. Web stuff; same as above -- get creative with the search contents. Google, Dogpile, The wayback machine Be on the lookout for "protest pages". I have occasionally hit the jackpot with searches that revealed fact-filled protest pages. Well worth a look. Try finding previous employers of the key managers and investigate those companies as well.
3. In the US, you can check places like bbb.org for a history of business complaints. Also try state dept. of consumer protection. The secretary of state will generally have corporate registration data that can be of interest. In some states, you can visit the judicial department online and search for civil cases involving the employer in question. Are they suing anyone? Is anyone suing them?
OK, it took 1000 machines and 3 months for this particular example. The task is not impossible, and there are people who really can get their hands on 1000 machines.
If the goal is personal security, I agree that the average credit card hacker is not going to make the investment. On the other hand, the NSA has the hardware resources to attack on a grand scale, with perhaps even better algorithms.
It will be a while before RIAA and MPAA can hijack NSA resources to pursue P2P users, so I guess we ARE still safe for a while.
IMHO, the issue of dumping or keeping SCO's Unix products is a smokescreen. Just like the "problems" Baystar has with SCO senior management. Whoever is really driving the deal has somehow convinced Baystar to give SCO a chance to avoid redemption.
Nobody knows what motivated Baystar, but now they need to set the stage for SCO to do something -- anything that can be declared a Baystar victory. Manufacture a problem, scream for a solution, cancel redemption. Any problem and any solution will do.
Another conspiracy theory is that SCOX will sell it's non-controversial products at an inflated price to MSFT, thus facilitating the next "round" of funding. After all, they "had to" unload these unprofitable lines of business because Baystar said so.
Baystar requests redemption just to shake up SCO management? If they didn't like Darl, why did they give him the money in the first place?
The SCO management team is the same one that existed when the deal was made. SCO products are the same. Other than adding litigation as a line of business, they are the same company that existed at the time of the PIPE deal.
Redemption is an extreme action on Baystar's part, and I don't buy their explanation that the only problem is now SCO's senior management and their non-litigation products. Whatever the real reason is, this is NOT it.
I think MSFT is at it again, lobbying Baystar to give SCO a chance to avoid redemption, in exchange for ?????? This whole concept of "Make a few changes and you can keep the money" is 100% bogus.
"i think sco's building is only two floors so you'd blow yourself up along with your office chair/monitor/c4 contraption"
And to think there are people who think there is no role for IT outsourcing!
Happy trails, Darl
I just had to ask.
"Oh my God! The quarterback is toast!"
If it's of any consolation: the next wave of offshoring will be tougher on the accounting/finance people, as their line of work is usually an overhead cost, highly regulated (and therefore standardized), just begging for offshore outsourcing.br>
Remember: the cost of recovering a train wreck is far more than the cost of the train or its cargo.
Can anyone really become invisible to stalkers just because they have a bogus WHOIS record? Any stalker worth his salt can track people from any one of hundreds of publicly accessible databases and grab all kinds of information. How much data can you really keep private? Registering a domain is a quasi-public act that results in loss of privacy, similar to what happens when you buy a car. Nobody makes you buy a car. But if you choose to do it, alot of people can easily find who you are and what you bought.
You mentioned pointing your domains at your old address. In some databases, that would be enough to help a stalker. I can think of at least one easily accessible place where knowing a person's name and previous residence would reveal their age and possibly their current town and state.
If online anonymity is the goal, I would opt for a dynamic IP address, such as my dyndns.org, with throwaway e-mail accounts (Hotmail, ICQ, etc.) for those times when you must publish an e-mail address.
Actually, I'm more concerned with the spam. Some if it is obviously the result of WHOIS harvesting.
You raise an interesting point. DRM is always going to be hackable, so let's look at the incentives.
"Unlimited burns + no expiration + multiple devices + multiple computers = Not worth the trouble"
As you say, not much incentive to hack if you can do what you want with the downloads. Notice that this supports the theory that hacking DRM has nothing to do with "stealing" music; the real motivation is to defeat the crippling restrictions on usage.
Microsoft + expiration date + music drm = another hacker victory
1. The hardware is locked down, X-box style. Hardware manufacturing is a capital-intensive business. It will not manufacture itself, nor will anyone develop faster/better hardware for free.
2. Software companies pay the hardware manufacturers to lock down the boxes, which are either sold or rented at subsidized prices to the customer/victims. The whole concept is to quietly deploy DRM while loudly advertising the subsidized pricing.
3. Visually "designing" an app involves nothing more than choosing the location of toolbars and buttons on IE.
4. The new PCs are little more than launching platforms for an "MS Office appliance". A fair number of PCs out there exist for the sole purpose of running office. Office is the portion of the M$ empire that is hardest for OSS to elimintate.
So it all comes down to this: Bill wants to get people focused on saving money via cheap hardware, because he can subsidize that in the short run and lock out competitors in the long run.
The "Net PC" had this kind of business model. It failed. Those who fail to understand history are condemned to repeat it.
If the winner chooses to disclose the VIN number. Armed with that, I'm sure some "researchers" can get the ownership history.
Nobody NEEDS the entertainment industry. The sooner we stop buying their crap, the sooner we get our rights back.
I agree; no way will the Feds cave in. Same logic as IBM: "If we pay these clowns, thousands more will be on our doorsteps tomorrow for their handout". Besides, the money to fight this battle is not part of any agency's budget -- the Feds have infinite cash to fight this, just as they do when fighting a war. Say whatever you like about Iraq, but this is one war we can all support!
Forget marketing, it is the install/config process that makes Linux products hard to sell. Let's face it, Linux assumes that a reasonably skilled sysadmin is sitting at the controls. Windows assumes that the sysadmin can be relied upon to click "Yes", "Next", "OK", and "Finish".
Package installers go only so far. Progress has been made regarding dependencies and cascading installations, but I see room for improvement. I find many products still require the "./configure ; make ; make install" method.
The people who write the code are hard-pressed to consider every possible Linux distro or hardware/software environment. Poor documentation doesn't help. We get away with it on the server side, but this will not work with embedded systems or desktops, where you don't have a sysadmin ready to hack the install. If I am buying a product, I expect the install to be smooth and trouble-free. If I have to sit and hack, I might as well stick with free stuff or write it myself.
Don't get me wrong, Linux products are great, once they are installed. Proprietary products are easy to install, but it's all downhill from there.
If your address is correct, then have a look at this
Most of the ribbons ran in a perpetual loop, no rewinding involved. After some number of runs (2 or 3?), the characters would fade and it was time for a new ribbon (or 3 more ink drops on the felt pad.) The ribbons all had a little knob, but that was merely to take up tension and advance the ribbon. If you were twisting the knob thinking it was rewinding the ribbon (and extending it's life), the joke's on you!
The Okidata 8x and 9x series were real beasts; far and away the most rugged printers I ever saw. They used spools that were compatible with typewriter ribbons. In fact, you could install a typewriter ribbon and it worked! The print head allegedly needed some kind of lubrication that was built into the genuine Oki ribbons. Now that I think of it, the ribbons had a little eyelet that caught a lever so as to reverse the ribbon direction. The printers were fairly expensive, but the ribbons (even the genuine ones) were cheap.
Panasonic had a neat little gimmick. Their ribbons were very expensive, but they had an ink reserve; you could push a button on the cartridge and it would use its ink reserve to start re-inking itself. That trick only worked once; after you did it, you were supposed to go buy another ribbon.
Back in the days when dot matrix was the only game in town, ribbons were exhorbitantly priced, with little "features" to ensure a revenue stream to the manufacturer. The first workaround was ribbon re-inkers. You could place a little block of felt near the ribbon intake and put a few drops of ink onto the felt every so often. Ultimately, generic knock-offs solved most of the problem.
I will keep my old stuff for as long as it works. When I am confronted with HDTV crippleware, it's time to get rid of TV altogether. There isn't any problem MPAA can create that I can't solve with the power switch.
These MPAA people are determined to follow in the footsteps of RIAA. Crappy content, obnoxious protection, struggling for more and more control over media that has less and less content. Pretty soon they will control 100% of nothing.