Can't you just swap out the drive? If I recall correctly, the SuperDrive is just a DVR-103 or DVR-104 (both Pioneer OEM drives as you said), depends on the model of SuperDrive, I think.
I do recall some software being able to write only to the SuperDrive, but I thought that was "fixed" somewhere along the line.
However, I have the Pioneer DVR-A04 (in my PC), and I feel your pain. With the newer firmwares, I can't write to a 4x DVD-R at all, it seems. Could be the discs mind you, but I've been hearing rumblings...
I'd say most likely because 8x hasn't been officially approved as a DVD-R format (last I heard, anyway). Last time I tried to check out the DVD-R forum website (I'm pretty sure it was the official one), I couldn't get any information without a username/password, which cost money.
It's that main point that has had me waiting for 8x to be approved until I buy a new DVD-R drive (my current drive is a Pioneer DVR-A04). When I checked out the media list for the Pioneer DVR-A07, I noticed that they're playing the same tricks as they did for 2x on the A03 and A04 - certain firmwares, certain media brands, must go through Pioneer certification, blah, blah, blah. Although there's a bunch of drives that are claimed to be 8x compatible, I believe that many of them (not all) are OEM Pioneer drives.
Now, if they could ratify 8x -R as a standard and get a good dual-layer drive out, I'd pay a good chunk of change for it.
I have met some 'softies, as you put it. Had a business relationship with them for a year. I went to the Redmond campus for a week and escaped unscathed.
When I was there (December 1999), the talk around the campus was the anti-trust suit. Most of the employees felt wronged, they just didn't understand why charges were being brought against the company. When I'd mention things like breaking competing applications and hidden APIs, they just stared at me blankly.
They're smart people, certainly, but I really do think that they are somewhat brainwashed, when it comes to the company, and what it does. They're not knowingly against other companies or Open Source software, they just see a Microsoft solution as the only solution.
An ISP only has to log the packets of those users it receives complaints against. I said nothing about logging all packets (and in fact, I am against logging all packets).
Remember Code Red? Remember how many users put up statistics on their web page about the people connecting? Why not turn that over to the ISP responsible and have them investigate it?
Your point about the e-mail server is well taken - if I was running it, there would be filters in place. Unfortunately, I don't run it, and I'm not given the means of setting up my own e-mail server (we have the domain name, we have the PC, but my manager won't let me do it - our e-mail server is the one running in Taiwan, and it's very poorly setup). Thus, all I can do is tell my users to be careful, and listen to their complaints when they tell me the e-mail server is down (which I can't do a thing about). Yes, it's more of a procedural thing than a technical thing...
That said, if people don't do stupid things and get themselves intentionally infected (and I would consider one of those things to use licensed copies of their software), then this problem wouldn't be nearly as bad.
There are seperate laws relating to the things that you mention. If MegaCorp were to have somebody in a rival company killed, while MegaCorp might not be held responsible, the person(s) who committed the deed would be held personally responsible.
MegaCorp would also get a bad image from it as well, but that's a secondary result.
Also, as you have probably noticed, Microsoft has been sued on numerous occastions for violations of the law. The Department of Justice not acting on that is the problem, but there are still laws. My personal opinion is that Microsoft, as a company should have been broken up a long time ago.
Those who don't purchase the OS don't count, and to Microsoft, they shouldn't really matter. If somebody were to ask for a fix for my software, and they weren't a legitimate user, I'd deny them.
The end user will be pissed, and if they keep using the unpatched version of Windows, then they'll notice that their machine doesn't work properly anymore, so they'll be inconvenienced with a re-install every so often. Or, maybe their ISP will cut them off for spreading viruses/worms.
Either way, the problem will eventually solve itself.
This an interesting idea, but are you willing to pay 2 to 4 times more to bring the system and admin staff online? If so, are you going to mind slower access speeds (there is overhead involved in grabbing and analyzing packets)?
Perhaps if companies had adequate staff on board to handle these problems, they wouldn't have them in the first place. I certainly would pay the extra money, or if not having the person on full-time, have a consultant on retainer or something.
Perhaps if companies actually trained their employees, and actually had punishments for breaking the rules, maybe we'd get somewhere.
Here at my office (a very small office), we don't have any virus or spyware problems. Why? Because people here listened to me when I told them not to open attachments from people they don't know. They listened to me when I told them that they need to have anti-virus software installed and updated.
Just last week, one of my co-workers dragged me to his computer, and asked me to read an e-mail that he received. It was a hoax virus that wanted him to delete a Microsoft Java file. Lots of people that I've met in my time would have just simply just done what the e-mail says, because it says, "trust me".
And what do you do about the poor, disabled, indigent, and retired users, exclude them from payment? If so, are you willing to pay 4-8 times your current access rate?
If they didn't pay, cut them off. If I connected to my cable internet service illegally, I'd be cut off (and probably criminally charged and/or sued).
As an aside, I work for a company that sells a physical product with software on it. The bulk of our sales depends on being able to sell the physical product. We don't distribute firmware upgrades to the end-user, only to cable operators when they make the request.
However, there's a group that has obtained firmware releases for our product, and distributed them to everybody, along with tools to circumvent the protection measures in place, in an attempt to be able to update the firmware. If it were up to me, I'd find a way to sue these people for copyright infringement and shut them down. While selling firmware isn't our primary business model, they have distributed something that they have no right to do so, and deprived us of the possibility of selling firmware upgrades to cable operators who don't want to buy new hardware products from us.
If you do license Windows, then no, you do not deserve the network pounding.
So, if your network is being pounded, then contact the ISP of the network doing the pounding. Get them to investigate. They should take their bandwidth costs seriously. They should either force the user to patch, or drop the user as a customer.
The average person who "pirates" (or copies Windows without a license, which would be the correct term) got it from a friend. This person doesn't really know what Windows is, or what Windows does, except that they need Windows the use their camera and play games.
In some cases, this person just received a copy of a Windows CD from their friend, and now their friend is long gone... When their copy of Windows doesn't activate anymore, what's they're likely recourse: 1. Well, I could try thus Lunix, or Leeenux, or however you pronounce it. But, my co-workers said that it's really hard to use, except for Bob over there, he really likes it. But even Bob says that I shouldn't use it because it's difficult. 2. I could go to Best Buy and get my own copy of Windows... It's only $199, and then I'll be able to update it. And, I don't have to learn anything new.
Remember: Techno geeks are a very small percentage of the market. Even a lot of techno geeks run Windows, because they prefer it to some extent.
But, all that Microsoft has to say is, "Well, our legitimately licensed users were able to download the necessary fixes. We take no responsibilities for anybody who chose not to purchase our software, and the (limited) support contract that came with that purchase." The end user might be slightly pissed, but I predict that they'll be going out and buying their retail copies of Windows. Business users won't care, since (in theory) they're properly licensed.
The PR problem is thus solved. Microsoft might even be able to make a case for incrased DRM to prevent their product from being copied and used in a manner where it can't be upgraded, for the sake of "public internet safety."
Again, Microsoft has no actual responsibility to provide their users for their software. The only reason that they do so, is so that they can keep the users from jumping to another operating system - they do just "good enough".
As I've said in other posts, if Microsoft doesn't make the updates available to users who are deemed to not have licensed software (or "pirate" software), one of these will likely happen: 1. Users will purchase a licensed copy of Windows. 2. Users will find somebody who can get them the updates (most likely violating the Windows license to do so). 3. ISPs will start shutting down PCs that are flooding the network with exploit traffic - well, or they'll just jack up everybody's monthly rates.
Microsoft's responsibility is to make the shareholders happy (not to provide security fixes), so it's actually to their benefit to shut off Windows machines that aren't legit, due to the high probability that these people will buy a copy of Windows.
Microsoft only provides security fixes so that a majority of their customers won't switch to something else - in other words, they do the minimum (maybe a bit more than that) work necessary to keep their customers, despite other competing solutions.
I honestly think that the number of people that will switch to Linux because of Microsoft now allowing users who "pirated" their software to not obtain fixes will be minimal. Those who would switch were most likely borderline switch candidates anyway.
What I think will happen is that if Microsoft denies the updates, there will be lots of people in line at their friendly computer store, buying copies of Windows. In that case, Microsoft sees huge gains.
In that case, the ISPs will start scanning their networks for infected machines, and start shutting them down. Problem solved. Customers will eventually start demanding this, once monthly fees start going up.
Unfortunately, that means that ISPs will start filtering even more traffic on their connections. Working for a company that makes cable modems, and having provided support, most of the configuration files that I see from cable operators filter out a lot of ports. The standard Windows sharing ports are blocked, as are some common virus ports. I can't wait to see what will happen soon after this.
Microsoft could easily spin the PR. All they have to say is something along the lines of, "Well, our legitimate users were able to patch their machines and fix the problems. I guess we really need that DRM now more than ever to make sure that people don't copy our products."
The people running their less-than-legal copies of Windows will either: 1. Find a way to get the patches anyway, from one of their "friends" 2. Stop using Windows.
I'm not advocating either of these methods, but if you don't license your software, you don't deserve support.
Microsoft, nor does any other company, have a civic duty - their only duty is to make the shareholders money.
That said, if a person did not legally acquire a product, they don't deserve support for it, I couldn't care less if it was a product that almost everybody had, and only one company made it.
I'd be in favor of Microsoft giving out the security update, if they tracked everybody who didn't have a valid license and then tried to sue said user.
If I bring a stolen car for service at any place that checks the VIN on the car, I can fully expect to be arrested, I don't see why people who copy software should be any different.
Granted, these people not getting the software updates will cause problems for the rest of us, in that they're propagating some sort of virus.
My solution to that is to shut off the users. If the ISP of this user can prove that the user's PC is infected and sending out the virus, then it should be simple for the ISP to say, "patch it, or we're shutting you down".
I'm not really fond of ISPs snooping in on my traffic to determine whether or not to cut me off, so they should base it on a complaint system - if somebody complains that you're spreading the virus, then the ISP investigates (I recall lots of people with logs of Code Red attacks). If they find proof that you're spreading the virus, then you're forced to patch, or if you can't, you're shut down.
Extreme, perhaps, but the only way that people will properly maintain their machines.
I have to give a thumbs-up to wxWidgets as well. At the moment, I'm using it for a personal project, that is being developed in Linux, but the Windows market is a much larger audience (most people have a Windows machine at their desk, not a Linux or UNIX machine).
The code, using only wxWidgets calls (and other code that compiles in MinGW) compiles very cleanly under Windows (although using net-snmp does add a couple of steps more convoluted than "./configure;make;make install"). I used to use Qt, but switched in part to the lack of a GPL'd version (yes, I know that it has been ported, but it's not TrollTech's official Win32 tree), and the API in wxWidgets is comparable. Plus, wxWidgets uses the Windows native widgets, unlike Qt, which TrollTech says are done via a "style".
You're right, the GPL is not necessarily free (from what you say, I believe you're talking about the "free as in beer" argument, not the "free as in speech" argument).
If a company wishes to use GPL'd code, they should definitely consult with a lawyer to make sure that they meet all of the obligations.
However, the cost of consulting a lawyer might very well be less than the R&D cost of re-inventing that GPL'd code, in that case, the company can make some money off of it.
If the company doesn't meet the obligations of the GPL, then they deserve the bad press that they get. If you're using somebody elses' code, then you have to abide by their restrictions, just as I cannot legally install one copy of Windows on multiple computers (because the license agreement does not permit me).
Even though the GPL'd code is free ("as in beer"), the reason it's "pirated" is to save a company their own R&D costs, or licensing fees (or something else), which are not free.
So, that GPL'd code could be priced at/worth thousands of dollars (to that company).
True. It helps greatly when you're in the same office. Also when you speak the same language. In the case of UK to US, I don't see that much of a problem, unless you use lots of UK words that Americans aren't familiar with (in which case, I'd look them up in a dictionary).
When going from one language to another, it's a pain. Just a couple of nights ago, I was trying to explain something to a co-worker overseas (via IM), and he interrupted me, saying, "Sorry, I don't know english so good".
I see this problem all of the time from my co-workers in the Taiwan office. I can fully explain something, but when I come back in the morning, I get e-mails of, "I don't understand", and "Please explain again", or they ask me a question that I already answered.
In fact, it has gotten so bad, that my manager (here in the U.S.) has requested that I work nights two days per week, or five days per week, any time something critical comes up, so that we can do simultaneous work.
Thus far, I've only had to do it once, but still, it's enough to drive my crazy.
The government cannot take away your right to drive a car - you are free to operate any motor vehicle on any private land, assuming you have the permission of the land owner. If you own the land, fine. If you friend owns the land, then you need your friend's permission.
Public roads are basically government-owned - therefore you need the governments' permission. This comes in the form of a drivers' license. If you cannot meet the requirements for a drivers' license, then you do not have permission to drive on government-owned roads. You still are able to drive a car - just not on government-owned (or "public") roads.
Think of it this way - if it were truly a right to drive, then you wouldn't need licenses and car registrations. But then you'd have six year-olds driving, and cars that are dropping parts all over the road (although that's sometimes the truth, and not an exaggeration).
Most people who face difficulties in transportation do so by their own choice. When I lived in San Francisco, it was impractical to own a car because parking wasn't available in my neighborhood. Yes, it sucked to get the groceries, or go to Fry's, but that's what WebVan and CalTrain were for. It was my choice to live in an area where I couldn't park a car. Drunk drivers choose to lose their license due to their irresponsible behavior, as do those who don't pay their parking tickets.
John Gilmore's problem was not the government, the airline didn't let him on the plane. Not the government, the airline. (Yes, I read the link - the Captain refused to let him on. That particular article doesn't detail the FAA regulations, one of the linked articles does).
I do have the right to run whatever software I see fit on my computer, as long as it does not violate any United States laws. At this point, I'm not sure on the legal status of DeCSS, but I haven't heard of a law against Linux in general. When one does pass, I'll be thrown in jail like the rest of them.
Dictionary definitions: Right: That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting. Privilige: A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.
In other words, while freedom of movement is a *right* (it's pretty much illegal for somebody to forcibly confine you), doing so by driving a car is a *privilige* (in that it is an advantage given to you because you have passed a drivers' test).
That sign is for the safety of the pedestrians as well.
Did you know that most probationary drivers (both motorcycles and regular cars) are not allowed on highways after a certain time of the day (this varies from area to area). Is that violating their "right to drive"?
If you don't have a license, take a cab, or get a ride from a friend who does have a license. There's nothing stopping you from doing that, right?
I agree that the government taking away your license for something non-driving related is a bit of a grey issue. The problem is that there isn't really any other way to force you to pay up.
But, perhaps if you (not you specifically, but the people who don't) paid your parking tickets or your back taxes, you wouldn't lose your drivers' license. (Again, not you personally), take responsibility for your actions.
While I agree with you on back taxes, failure to pay your parking tickets does demonstrate that you cannot safely drive a vehicle. You disregarded the rules of the road for where you may and may not park. A lot of the time, this is for safety regulations (i.e. fire lane, hazard to other traffic, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
Can't you just swap out the drive? If I recall correctly, the SuperDrive is just a DVR-103 or DVR-104 (both Pioneer OEM drives as you said), depends on the model of SuperDrive, I think.
I do recall some software being able to write only to the SuperDrive, but I thought that was "fixed" somewhere along the line.
However, I have the Pioneer DVR-A04 (in my PC), and I feel your pain. With the newer firmwares, I can't write to a 4x DVD-R at all, it seems. Could be the discs mind you, but I've been hearing rumblings...
-- Joe
I'd say most likely because 8x hasn't been officially approved as a DVD-R format (last I heard, anyway). Last time I tried to check out the DVD-R forum website (I'm pretty sure it was the official one), I couldn't get any information without a username/password, which cost money.
It's that main point that has had me waiting for 8x to be approved until I buy a new DVD-R drive (my current drive is a Pioneer DVR-A04). When I checked out the media list for the Pioneer DVR-A07, I noticed that they're playing the same tricks as they did for 2x on the A03 and A04 - certain firmwares, certain media brands, must go through Pioneer certification, blah, blah, blah. Although there's a bunch of drives that are claimed to be 8x compatible, I believe that many of them (not all) are OEM Pioneer drives.
Now, if they could ratify 8x -R as a standard and get a good dual-layer drive out, I'd pay a good chunk of change for it.
-- Joe
I have met some 'softies, as you put it. Had a business relationship with them for a year. I went to the Redmond campus for a week and escaped unscathed.
When I was there (December 1999), the talk around the campus was the anti-trust suit. Most of the employees felt wronged, they just didn't understand why charges were being brought against the company. When I'd mention things like breaking competing applications and hidden APIs, they just stared at me blankly.
They're smart people, certainly, but I really do think that they are somewhat brainwashed, when it comes to the company, and what it does. They're not knowingly against other companies or Open Source software, they just see a Microsoft solution as the only solution.
-- Joe
An ISP only has to log the packets of those users it receives complaints against. I said nothing about logging all packets (and in fact, I am against logging all packets).
Remember Code Red? Remember how many users put up statistics on their web page about the people connecting? Why not turn that over to the ISP responsible and have them investigate it?
Your point about the e-mail server is well taken - if I was running it, there would be filters in place. Unfortunately, I don't run it, and I'm not given the means of setting up my own e-mail server (we have the domain name, we have the PC, but my manager won't let me do it - our e-mail server is the one running in Taiwan, and it's very poorly setup). Thus, all I can do is tell my users to be careful, and listen to their complaints when they tell me the e-mail server is down (which I can't do a thing about). Yes, it's more of a procedural thing than a technical thing...
That said, if people don't do stupid things and get themselves intentionally infected (and I would consider one of those things to use licensed copies of their software), then this problem wouldn't be nearly as bad.
-- Joe
There are seperate laws relating to the things that you mention. If MegaCorp were to have somebody in a rival company killed, while MegaCorp might not be held responsible, the person(s) who committed the deed would be held personally responsible.
MegaCorp would also get a bad image from it as well, but that's a secondary result.
Also, as you have probably noticed, Microsoft has been sued on numerous occastions for violations of the law. The Department of Justice not acting on that is the problem, but there are still laws. My personal opinion is that Microsoft, as a company should have been broken up a long time ago.
-- Joe
Those who don't purchase the OS don't count, and to Microsoft, they shouldn't really matter. If somebody were to ask for a fix for my software, and they weren't a legitimate user, I'd deny them.
The end user will be pissed, and if they keep using the unpatched version of Windows, then they'll notice that their machine doesn't work properly anymore, so they'll be inconvenienced with a re-install every so often. Or, maybe their ISP will cut them off for spreading viruses/worms.
Either way, the problem will eventually solve itself.
-- Joe
Certainly if companies actually realized this, I'd enjoy my job a lot more.
But, as long as companies can get away with doing the bare minimum, they will. It's just human nature (which to me is sad, but that's another rant).
-- Joe
This an interesting idea, but are you willing to pay 2 to 4 times more to bring the system and admin staff online? If so, are you going to mind slower access speeds (there is overhead involved in grabbing and analyzing packets)?
Perhaps if companies had adequate staff on board to handle these problems, they wouldn't have them in the first place. I certainly would pay the extra money, or if not having the person on full-time, have a consultant on retainer or something.
Perhaps if companies actually trained their employees, and actually had punishments for breaking the rules, maybe we'd get somewhere.
Here at my office (a very small office), we don't have any virus or spyware problems. Why? Because people here listened to me when I told them not to open attachments from people they don't know. They listened to me when I told them that they need to have anti-virus software installed and updated.
Just last week, one of my co-workers dragged me to his computer, and asked me to read an e-mail that he received. It was a hoax virus that wanted him to delete a Microsoft Java file. Lots of people that I've met in my time would have just simply just done what the e-mail says, because it says, "trust me".
And what do you do about the poor, disabled, indigent, and retired users, exclude them from payment? If so, are you willing to pay 4-8 times your current access rate?
If they didn't pay, cut them off. If I connected to my cable internet service illegally, I'd be cut off (and probably criminally charged and/or sued).
As an aside, I work for a company that sells a physical product with software on it. The bulk of our sales depends on being able to sell the physical product. We don't distribute firmware upgrades to the end-user, only to cable operators when they make the request.
However, there's a group that has obtained firmware releases for our product, and distributed them to everybody, along with tools to circumvent the protection measures in place, in an attempt to be able to update the firmware. If it were up to me, I'd find a way to sue these people for copyright infringement and shut them down. While selling firmware isn't our primary business model, they have distributed something that they have no right to do so, and deprived us of the possibility of selling firmware upgrades to cable operators who don't want to buy new hardware products from us.
-- Joe
If you do license Windows, then no, you do not deserve the network pounding.
So, if your network is being pounded, then contact the ISP of the network doing the pounding. Get them to investigate. They should take their bandwidth costs seriously. They should either force the user to patch, or drop the user as a customer.
Either way, the world is a "safer" place.
-- Joe
The average person who "pirates" (or copies Windows without a license, which would be the correct term) got it from a friend. This person doesn't really know what Windows is, or what Windows does, except that they need Windows the use their camera and play games.
In some cases, this person just received a copy of a Windows CD from their friend, and now their friend is long gone... When their copy of Windows doesn't activate anymore, what's they're likely recourse:
1. Well, I could try thus Lunix, or Leeenux, or however you pronounce it. But, my co-workers said that it's really hard to use, except for Bob over there, he really likes it. But even Bob says that I shouldn't use it because it's difficult.
2. I could go to Best Buy and get my own copy of Windows... It's only $199, and then I'll be able to update it. And, I don't have to learn anything new.
Remember: Techno geeks are a very small percentage of the market. Even a lot of techno geeks run Windows, because they prefer it to some extent.
-- Joe
True.
But, all that Microsoft has to say is, "Well, our legitimately licensed users were able to download the necessary fixes. We take no responsibilities for anybody who chose not to purchase our software, and the (limited) support contract that came with that purchase." The end user might be slightly pissed, but I predict that they'll be going out and buying their retail copies of Windows. Business users won't care, since (in theory) they're properly licensed.
The PR problem is thus solved. Microsoft might even be able to make a case for incrased DRM to prevent their product from being copied and used in a manner where it can't be upgraded, for the sake of "public internet safety."
Again, Microsoft has no actual responsibility to provide their users for their software. The only reason that they do so, is so that they can keep the users from jumping to another operating system - they do just "good enough".
-- Joe
As I've said in other posts, if Microsoft doesn't make the updates available to users who are deemed to not have licensed software (or "pirate" software), one of these will likely happen:
1. Users will purchase a licensed copy of Windows.
2. Users will find somebody who can get them the updates (most likely violating the Windows license to do so).
3. ISPs will start shutting down PCs that are flooding the network with exploit traffic - well, or they'll just jack up everybody's monthly rates.
Microsoft's responsibility is to make the shareholders happy (not to provide security fixes), so it's actually to their benefit to shut off Windows machines that aren't legit, due to the high probability that these people will buy a copy of Windows.
Microsoft only provides security fixes so that a majority of their customers won't switch to something else - in other words, they do the minimum (maybe a bit more than that) work necessary to keep their customers, despite other competing solutions.
-- Joe
I honestly think that the number of people that will switch to Linux because of Microsoft now allowing users who "pirated" their software to not obtain fixes will be minimal. Those who would switch were most likely borderline switch candidates anyway.
What I think will happen is that if Microsoft denies the updates, there will be lots of people in line at their friendly computer store, buying copies of Windows. In that case, Microsoft sees huge gains.
-- Joe
In that case, the ISPs will start scanning their networks for infected machines, and start shutting them down. Problem solved. Customers will eventually start demanding this, once monthly fees start going up.
Unfortunately, that means that ISPs will start filtering even more traffic on their connections. Working for a company that makes cable modems, and having provided support, most of the configuration files that I see from cable operators filter out a lot of ports. The standard Windows sharing ports are blocked, as are some common virus ports. I can't wait to see what will happen soon after this.
-- Joe
Microsoft could easily spin the PR. All they have to say is something along the lines of, "Well, our legitimate users were able to patch their machines and fix the problems. I guess we really need that DRM now more than ever to make sure that people don't copy our products."
The people running their less-than-legal copies of Windows will either:
1. Find a way to get the patches anyway, from one of their "friends"
2. Stop using Windows.
I'm not advocating either of these methods, but if you don't license your software, you don't deserve support.
-- Joe
Microsoft, nor does any other company, have a civic duty - their only duty is to make the shareholders money.
That said, if a person did not legally acquire a product, they don't deserve support for it, I couldn't care less if it was a product that almost everybody had, and only one company made it.
I'd be in favor of Microsoft giving out the security update, if they tracked everybody who didn't have a valid license and then tried to sue said user.
If I bring a stolen car for service at any place that checks the VIN on the car, I can fully expect to be arrested, I don't see why people who copy software should be any different.
-- Joe
You don't deserve the software update.
Granted, these people not getting the software updates will cause problems for the rest of us, in that they're propagating some sort of virus.
My solution to that is to shut off the users. If the ISP of this user can prove that the user's PC is infected and sending out the virus, then it should be simple for the ISP to say, "patch it, or we're shutting you down".
I'm not really fond of ISPs snooping in on my traffic to determine whether or not to cut me off, so they should base it on a complaint system - if somebody complains that you're spreading the virus, then the ISP investigates (I recall lots of people with logs of Code Red attacks). If they find proof that you're spreading the virus, then you're forced to patch, or if you can't, you're shut down.
Extreme, perhaps, but the only way that people will properly maintain their machines.
-- Joe
I have to give a thumbs-up to wxWidgets as well. At the moment, I'm using it for a personal project, that is being developed in Linux, but the Windows market is a much larger audience (most people have a Windows machine at their desk, not a Linux or UNIX machine).
The code, using only wxWidgets calls (and other code that compiles in MinGW) compiles very cleanly under Windows (although using net-snmp does add a couple of steps more convoluted than "./configure;make;make install"). I used to use Qt, but switched in part to the lack of a GPL'd version (yes, I know that it has been ported, but it's not TrollTech's official Win32 tree), and the API in wxWidgets is comparable. Plus, wxWidgets uses the Windows native widgets, unlike Qt, which TrollTech says are done via a "style".
-- Joe
You're right, the GPL is not necessarily free (from what you say, I believe you're talking about the "free as in beer" argument, not the "free as in speech" argument).
If a company wishes to use GPL'd code, they should definitely consult with a lawyer to make sure that they meet all of the obligations.
However, the cost of consulting a lawyer might very well be less than the R&D cost of re-inventing that GPL'd code, in that case, the company can make some money off of it.
If the company doesn't meet the obligations of the GPL, then they deserve the bad press that they get. If you're using somebody elses' code, then you have to abide by their restrictions, just as I cannot legally install one copy of Windows on multiple computers (because the license agreement does not permit me).
-- Joe
Minor nit.
Even though the GPL'd code is free ("as in beer"), the reason it's "pirated" is to save a company their own R&D costs, or licensing fees (or something else), which are not free.
So, that GPL'd code could be priced at/worth thousands of dollars (to that company).
-- Joe
True. It helps greatly when you're in the same office. Also when you speak the same language. In the case of UK to US, I don't see that much of a problem, unless you use lots of UK words that Americans aren't familiar with (in which case, I'd look them up in a dictionary).
When going from one language to another, it's a pain. Just a couple of nights ago, I was trying to explain something to a co-worker overseas (via IM), and he interrupted me, saying, "Sorry, I don't know english so good".
*sigh*
-- Joe
I see this problem all of the time from my co-workers in the Taiwan office. I can fully explain something, but when I come back in the morning, I get e-mails of, "I don't understand", and "Please explain again", or they ask me a question that I already answered.
In fact, it has gotten so bad, that my manager (here in the U.S.) has requested that I work nights two days per week, or five days per week, any time something critical comes up, so that we can do simultaneous work.
Thus far, I've only had to do it once, but still, it's enough to drive my crazy.
-- Joe
The government cannot take away your right to drive a car - you are free to operate any motor vehicle on any private land, assuming you have the permission of the land owner. If you own the land, fine. If you friend owns the land, then you need your friend's permission.
Public roads are basically government-owned - therefore you need the governments' permission. This comes in the form of a drivers' license. If you cannot meet the requirements for a drivers' license, then you do not have permission to drive on government-owned roads. You still are able to drive a car - just not on government-owned (or "public") roads.
Think of it this way - if it were truly a right to drive, then you wouldn't need licenses and car registrations. But then you'd have six year-olds driving, and cars that are dropping parts all over the road (although that's sometimes the truth, and not an exaggeration).
Most people who face difficulties in transportation do so by their own choice. When I lived in San Francisco, it was impractical to own a car because parking wasn't available in my neighborhood. Yes, it sucked to get the groceries, or go to Fry's, but that's what WebVan and CalTrain were for. It was my choice to live in an area where I couldn't park a car. Drunk drivers choose to lose their license due to their irresponsible behavior, as do those who don't pay their parking tickets.
John Gilmore's problem was not the government, the airline didn't let him on the plane. Not the government, the airline. (Yes, I read the link - the Captain refused to let him on. That particular article doesn't detail the FAA regulations, one of the linked articles does).
I do have the right to run whatever software I see fit on my computer, as long as it does not violate any United States laws. At this point, I'm not sure on the legal status of DeCSS, but I haven't heard of a law against Linux in general. When one does pass, I'll be thrown in jail like the rest of them.
Dictionary definitions:
Right: That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.
Privilige: A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.
In other words, while freedom of movement is a *right* (it's pretty much illegal for somebody to forcibly confine you), doing so by driving a car is a *privilige* (in that it is an advantage given to you because you have passed a drivers' test).
-- Joe
That sign is for the safety of the pedestrians as well.
Did you know that most probationary drivers (both motorcycles and regular cars) are not allowed on highways after a certain time of the day (this varies from area to area). Is that violating their "right to drive"?
If you don't have a license, take a cab, or get a ride from a friend who does have a license. There's nothing stopping you from doing that, right?
-- Joe
I agree that the government taking away your license for something non-driving related is a bit of a grey issue. The problem is that there isn't really any other way to force you to pay up.
But, perhaps if you (not you specifically, but the people who don't) paid your parking tickets or your back taxes, you wouldn't lose your drivers' license. (Again, not you personally), take responsibility for your actions.
While I agree with you on back taxes, failure to pay your parking tickets does demonstrate that you cannot safely drive a vehicle. You disregarded the rules of the road for where you may and may not park. A lot of the time, this is for safety regulations (i.e. fire lane, hazard to other traffic, etc.)
-- Joe