Re:I believe that you are wrong.
on
Safe and Insecure?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Such as "conspiracy to commit" or "accessory to", laws specifically designed for cases like this.
If you leave a loaded gun on your porch and a total stranger uses it to shoot someone, you may be guilty of negligence, but you are not an accessory to murder nor did you engage in a conspiracy to commit murder. How do you propose that the prosecution prove the the author "conspired" with a total stranger who pulled up in front of his house in a van with a laptop and with whom he never communicated?
Having deliberately deactivated his security and explicitly said he did so that criminal activity cannot be traced to any person, all the prosecution need to prove is the activity happened over his connection. He's an accessory, and he's in trouble.
Subtle difference: If the RIAA sues him, whether rightly or wrongly, he has plausible deniability in court. You have to remember that these are the same scumballs who sued an elderly couple who don't even own a computer. Sure, the elderly couple got off, but what happens to the guy who does own a computer and a WiFi network? He's facing a tremendous legal risk -- even if he never downloaded any copyrighted material. He even said, in the article: "So why am I doing this? In a word, privacy."
If the Department of Homeland Security comes knocking at your door because your connection was used for a suspicious Google Search, would you rather be able to point to an open WiFi connection or be locked up with no attorney as an "enemy combatent"? If you click on a link and it opens 100+ porn windows, some for kiddie porn sites, would you rather try to convince a jury that it was an innocent mistake or convince a judge that your open WiFi connection means that the case should be dismissed?
I believe that you are wrong.
on
Safe and Insecure?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Unfortunately, I think this only applies when you *don't do it on purpose*. From my point of view, if you design a network solely for the purpose of relieving yourself of responsibility for what traverses your network, you are pretty much screwed once you get to court.
The prosecution must prove that you committed a crime, not that you tried to make their job difficult. They can't convict you for something just because you tried to obsfuscate your actions or gain plausible deniability.
As the article title says, "safe and insecure." The author has decreased the risk he faces from lawsuits launched by the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, SPA, etc., in exchange for reduced network security.
Where he is in grave danger is from his ISP, which could cancel his account in a moment should they get a DMCA complaint, spam complaint, hacking complaint, DoS complaint, or virus complaint tied to his IP address. The courts have to give him due process. His ISP does not.
Instead of looking for some way to make money from Open Source, how about looking for a market need and selling a product or service that addresses that need?
I guess the question you have to ask yourself is whether you are looking for a business or a hobby. If it's a business, then follow the money. Looking for a way to make money with open source is like deciding that you want to win at a track and field event while wearing galoshes. You might manage to win despite the galoshes, but you'd be better off deciding on an event and then choosing the best footwear for it.
Ok, I'm confused. Is being a monopoly all about the amount of money you can charge for a product in theory or in practice? Or is it about competition?
It's about both. If you have a monopoly, then you can increase the price on your product beyond what the market would bear were there competitive pressures. That is why the government and courts get involved to protect consumers.
It is quite amusing to take a step back and read our dialogue. All of this armchair-business and armchair-propaganda. Slashdot is usually good for a laugh, and not much more. The world is much more complicated than the views expressed here.
I can think of no better illustration of that point than your posting.
Microsoft settles Minnesota antitrust pricing suit The trial in that case began last month
News Story by Joris Evers
APRIL 19, 2004 (IDG NEWS SERVICE) - Microsoft Corp. has reached a preliminary settlement in a class-action lawsuit in Minnesota that alleged that the company abused its Windows monopoly to overcharge customers in the state for its software.
As a result of the settlement, the trial, which began March 15, has been concluded and the jury has been discharged, according to a statement on the Hennepin County District Court Web site. The terms of the settlement will remain confidential until finalized sometime in early July, according to the statement.
The Minnesota case is one of several class-action lawsuits brought against Microsoft on behalf of consumers in the wake of the U.S. government's antitrust case that the vendor had been unable to settle or get dismissed.
Cases in Arizona, New Mexico and Iowa could still be headed for trial, and the Nebraska Supreme Court last month reversed earlier rulings that blocked a consumer class-action case in that state. In New York, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan, courts have initially declined to certify classes of consumers, but plaintiffs are appealing those decisions, Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said.
Cases in Vermont and Massachusetts are also still active but not as close to going to trial as the Arizona, New Mexico and Iowa cases, because classes of consumers have not yet been certified, according to Desler.
In settlements reached with lawyers representing consumers in states including California, Tennessee, North Dakota, South Dakota and Kansas, Microsoft agreed to make vouchers available to customers who bought Microsoft software during a specific time period. The vouchers can be used to buy computer software or hardware.
As part of the settlements, Microsoft has always denied any wrongdoing. In earlier statements, the company had also denied it did anything wrong in Minnesota.
Opening arguments in the Minnesota case began March 15. The court had allotted three months for the trial. Microsoft had said that it might call Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer to testify as part of its defense. Because of the settlement, the trial was concluded before Microsoft had even started to present its defense.
Trial exhibits in the Minnesota case will be available on the court's Web site until April 26. The documents offer an insight into Microsoft's business, back to the early days of the company when it was peddling DOS.
Actually, they do have the right. They are not regulated by any entity in the world, and there are no laws constricting them as to pricing their product.
How the f*** did you learn to post on Slashdot before learning to search on Google? Here's just one link that proves that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground with regards to this subject. In case your clicking skills are as impressive as your Google skills, here's the article:
Microsoft settles Minnesota antitrust pricing suit The trial in that case began last month
News Story by Joris Evers
APRIL 19, 2004 (IDG NEWS SERVICE) - Microsoft Corp. has reached a preliminary settlement in a class-action lawsuit in Minnesota that alleged that the company abused its Windows monopoly to overcharge customers in the state for its software.
As a result of the settlement, the trial, which began March 15, has been concluded and the jury has been discharged, according to a statement on the Hennepin County District Court Web site. The terms of the settlement will remain confidential until finalized sometime in early July, according to the statement.
The Minnesota case is one of several class-action lawsuits brought against Microsoft on behalf of consumers in the wake of the U.S. government's antitrust case that the vendor had been unable to settle or get dismissed.
Cases in Arizona, New Mexico and Iowa could still be headed for trial, and the Nebraska Supreme Court last month reversed earlier rulings that blocked a consumer class-action case in that state. In New York, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan, courts have initially declined to certify classes of consumers, but plaintiffs are appealing those decisions, Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said.
Cases in Vermont and Massachusetts are also still active but not as close to going to trial as the Arizona, New Mexico and Iowa cases, because classes of consumers have not yet been certified, according to Desler.
In settlements reached with lawyers representing consumers in states including California, Tennessee, North Dakota, South Dakota and Kansas, Microsoft agreed to make vouchers available to customers who bought Microsoft software during a specific time period. The vouchers can be used to buy computer software or hardware.
As part of the settlements, Microsoft has always denied any wrongdoing. In earlier statements, the company had also denied it did anything wrong in Minnesota.
Opening arguments in the Minnesota case began March 15. The court had allotted three months for the trial. Microsoft had said that it might call Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer to testify as part of its defense. Because of the settlement, the trial was concluded before Microsoft had even started to present its defense.
Trial exhibits in the Minnesota case will be available on the court's Web site until April 26. The documents offer an insight into Microsoft's business, back to the early days of the company when it was peddling DOS.
They have every right to adjust their prices to reflect these additional costs.
Actually, no, they do not. This is yet another example of them abusing their monopoly position within the marketplace. That's what all of the legal action has been about.
I have a VW TDI too. As for "lower TCO," the $50 oil changes (if you use the recommended full-synthetic with diesel additive package) make up for the fuel economy
I own a 2002 Golf TDI and I just don't understand your math. The recommended oil changes are every 10,000 miles, or about $500 for 100,000 miles (using your $50 figure). During that 100,000 miles, you've probably had no trouble maintaining 45mpg -- even if you drive aggressively. Right now, diesel is about $1.80 average per gallon with regular gasoline being about $.10 higher. But let's call the two equal in price for simplicity.
In 100,000 miles at 45mpg, you've used 2,222 gallons of diesel fuel. Let's compare that to a Honda Civic, which you can figure about 35mpg in (I'm being generous). The Honda would have used 2,857 gallons of gasoline. At $1.80 per gallon, that's $4,000 of fuel for the VW TDI and $5,142 in fuel for the Honda -- a difference of over $1,100. The Honda calls for a timing belt at about 90K to 105K miles, so if it hasn't had a belt already, it will have one soon. Also consider that, while the cost of oil changes may be less on the Honda (by using a non-synthetic), the changes are made more frequently, probably about every 5,000 to 7,500 miles, probably. I don't know about you, but my time is worth something and filling up the tank less frequently and changing oil less frequently is worth $$$ to me.
Next, consider longevity. Because diesel fuel is basically an oil, it lubricates the cylinders rather than scouring the lubrication off of them. That leads to a much greater engine longevity, on average, than gasoline engines enjoy. If you keep your car long enough, you need to consider the cost of an engine overhaul happening sooner with a comparable gas engine. Even if you don't, it's a lot easier to sell a high-mileage diesel than it is to sell a high-mileage gasoline engine car. The TDI VWs tend to hold their resale value much better than their gasoline engined counterparts.
I think that the TDI is a great deal that only gets better with rising fuel prices.
But Microsoft did not connect machines of those users to the Internet. Nor did they installed their faulty OS on those machines. Nor did they powered on those PCs.... Microsoft may be monopoly, but current situation is not that much bad as that MS is responsible for every PC on Earth. (which is of course not argument for dissasembly of anti-monopoly government bodies:)
Firestone did not drive those Ford Explorers out onto the highway. Nor did they install their faulty tires on those SUVs. Nor did they start up those SUVs...
It's just the same. MS made a faulty OS and Firestone made faulty tires. Each should be responsible for fixing their mistakes. I really don't care if someone pirated their copy of Windows, got it with their PC, or bought it retail. MS has no right to knowingly put innocent third parties at risk by denying patches to people when they know damned well that the majority of those people are going to continue using their OS.
So to close that up: Current situation with malware outbrakes is after all responsibility of customers of Microsoft - if there was, is not and wont be any demand for nice-looking, over-featured, buggy and insecure operating systems and applications, there wont be Microsoft with US$50 billion in cash doing next to nothing to cover the costs of their mistakes.
I don't see it as the fault of customers. They bought Windows because it came with their PC or was the only OS that ran the software that they needed. It's all well and good to talk about the joy of Open Source Software and operating systems, but if an end-user needs to run a Windows VPN client supplied by their work, relies on TaxCut to prepare their taxes, or has Windows-only software to control their telescope, they really don't have a choice.
This mess is the fault of Microsoft and the government. The FTC, the courts, and the Congress should long ago have declared software a product and, as such, subject to the same rules as any other product. It's ridiculous that Mattel toys are held to higher standards of performance than Windows. The whole license-to-use weasel words are what has allowed Microsoft to make security and stability back-burner issues. Make them responsible for data loss and damages caused by flaws in their OS and they will stop releasing buggy versions of Windows.
You will be happy to know that I just called my favorite tech support line and spoke to someone in India. I had trouble understanding everything he said, but I did catch his name: "Jimmy."
Jimmy worked with me for about 30 minutes on the question of protecting computers from lightning and then passed the call on to his supervisor, "Susan", who also had a very thick accent. According to what I was told by Susan and Jimmy, all one has to do in the case of a lightning strike is type about 40 commands starting with "ipconfig" and ending with "path." If there is no response to any of the commands, the answer is to unplug the computer, wait two minutes, and then plug it back in again.
Surprisingly, that's the same answer I've received from them for everything from a dead cable modem connection to RAM parity errors...
Try telling that to the "real" editors at Oxford University Press, USA TODAY, Springer, the Washington Post, Newsday, the Associated Press, etc., etc.
I would be happy to. Send them my way.
Proofreader's marks still have their purpose, but to say that they are de rigueur for pro editing just ain't right -- newspapers and book publishers have been using online text editing systems for well over a decade.
My significant other is a professional editor and writer. She worked for Time-Life Books as an employee for 15 years -- first as a researcher, then as a writer, and finally as an editor. She was with them until the merger with AOL when they began shutting down the book division. Edits were always done with pen and paper.
Since leaving there, she has worked for many clients and is currently working on a project for a top-tier book publisher. Editing is still done via faxes and handwritten proofreading marks.
Perhaps you are mistaking content editors with copy editors.
Yes it does. China is one of those countries that increases emissions.
More right-wing lies. Kyoto would have allowed China to increase emissions. It would not have, as you claimed, required it. When a country is largely agrarian and becoming industrialized, of course the emissions will increase -- or industrialization will grind to a halt. It's like demanding that everyone, including infants, never be allowed to have larger shoes and then claiming it's fair to everyone.
I'm the lunatic left's worst nightmare: an informed voter.
You're just another illogical, lie-spewing, distorting, right-wing, corporate schill.
Perhaps your view is skewed by your association with the aforementioned prestigious museum? Not all museums are well-supported by foundations and donations. The small, narrow-focus museums have to watch every dime, and sometimes charge admission.
Then maybe an audio stop is a bit too ambitious for their budgets. When there is a tight budget, it's all the more important that they don't waste their precious funds on delicate, theft-prone consumer gear. Unless it's the "Museum of AV Technology", it's likely that the volunteers are older, retired people who have VCRs that flash "12:00" continuously and who call refrigerators "ice boxes." Expecting them to be able to diagnose and repair an intermittant audio output or a dead channel spanning multiple headphones is just pure fantasy.
I don't want to rain on someone's parade, but neither do I want to pretend that I don't see the ominous, dark clouds approaching the parade route. The equipment costs a lot to buy because it costs a lot to make equipment that is suitable for public use. Most of the time, it's a lot cheaper to buy or rent appropriate equipment than it is to try to use fragile consumer grade stuff.
I think a major un-asked question here is how long does this exhibit have to last? "Ruggedized equipment" costs a bundle, but it's designed to stand up to years of hard use - overkill if we're talking about days or weeks here.
If the exhibit will only be up for a very short time, rent pro equipment.
Who the hell uses a fax machine anymore anyways???
Normal businesses and people, that's who.
When an editor wants to send back a marked-up piece of copy, they do it by fax. Any real editor in the world will tell you that you don't edit online. You do it with proofreaders' marks, circles, arrows, writing in between lines, etc.
If you are, or are dealing with, a lawyer, a real-estate agent, or anyone who works with contracts, you exchange the contracts via fax. (Typing your name in e-mail doesn't count as a signature.)
The business world still relies on faxes because they work better than e-mail for many purposes.
Most people don't have sheetfeed scanners, so they can't put a 15 page document in their scanner and just walk away. They have to feed it page by page, so don't even bother with the use-a-scanner-and-e-mail-it line.
Why not spend some time on Google and come up with your own links supporting your position?
I already did that earlier in the thread.
But that's an ugly trap that I've fallen into before. Someone posts an ill-informed opinion with no substantiating links and I reply with links. Rather than finding links to counter those that I posted, they attack the links I provided with claims that the authors were biased, that their opinion did not represent the mainstream thinking of scientists, etc. Suddenly, their position is the de-facto "correct" position and it's my job to disprove it.
Better yet, why not abandon the debate before getting to the point of personal attacks? Are you afraid that other readers might think that you have "lost" the argument in some way?
Maybe that's part of it. Sadly, "the last word" means far too much to many readers.
That equipment sounds nice, but it's not very relevant to the OP's needs. He/she is building listening stations. The equipment is fixed in position so the complicated bits - the CD-players, computers of what have you - don't need to be rugged like the handsets in your museum. They can be put in cabinets to protect them from the proles.
A listening station either has to have speakers (a very bad idea in most museum situations, where noise is an issue) or it has to have a personal listening device. If it's corded headphones, that's your weak link.
A CD-player may eventually wear out (moving parts) but an MP3 player should last virtually forever.
Agreed -- provided that the public can't touch it or any of its buttons.
I have little experience of running more than one sound-card under Linux, but my first approach would be to see how many soundcards I could fit in a 200mhz box (I've several lying around).
Even fast PCs are cheap now, so that shouldn't be an issue. I'd probably go for external USB sound devices. They can be had for less than $50. Creative has some. I'd make sure that they have the oomph to drive the headphones to a loud level (for the hearing-impaired). That also brings up the issue of providing volume controls on a per-listener basis.
But I still recommend against this if the museum is open to the public.
Do you need to cater for people with hearing aids (e.g. installing loop systems).
The ADA requires it, but the professional audio tour gear is all pretty much hearing aid compatible.
Also think about hackability. Will you move on and leave the museum people with a system that they don't understand and can't modify or repair? If I used the PC approach, I would be tempted to burn the software onto a bootable CD-rom. That way, even if the hard-disks crash and the computers die, someone savvy will probably be able to build a replacement machine. Document everything you do, explaining precisely how it works.
Good advice, but I'm still very leery of the entire thing. If it was really practical to do this commercially, then the existing companies would have a lot more low-cost competition.
From a theoretical standpoint, I'd go for a CD-booting distro with no hard drive required. Even better, boot from a USB flash drive. The only rotating parts would be fans. But, again, I would never propose it to any museum with which I am familiar.
The phone analogy is good, but backwards. This situation seems more akin to installing a new payphone in your living room, rather than using a cheap phone from Wal-Mart.
My analogy was dead-nuts on. It was putting cheap consumer-grade electronics (a Walmart phone) into a public place (outside of a convenience store). That's exactly what we're talking about here. Is your living room a public place? Is your living room frequented by strangers? Is your living room equipped with electronics that random strangers are allowed to operate? No, but a museum is.
The museum in question cannot afford to waste an extra few thousand dollars on features, reliability, and personnel that it doesn't need.
Quality and reliability are not a waste of money and it is musueum personnel who would have to guard, man, replace, and repair a system cobbled together from components at a consumer electronics stores. It's museum personnel who would have to deal with all of the headphones going silent at once when some rugrat yanks his headphone cord, breaking the insulation and shorting signal to ground, taking out the output stage of the amp, etc., etc., etc. It's museum personnel who would have to replace the headphones that were stolen when some hoodlum cut the cord and put the headphones under his coat. It's the museum that would have to find, purchase, and install new foam earpads when the public ripped them up (or off) in about a week. It's the museum personnel who would have to clean the earwax from the foam earpads (something not used on the professional equipment) every day. The list goes on and on.
You have a false sense of economy. It's cheaper to buy something appropriate for the job, even if it's more costly initially, than it is to purchase inappropriate, delicate consumer electronics that will be constantly in need of repair or replacement.
They are asking Slashdotters for free help over the Internet, after all.
So do you suggest that I just tell them what they want to hear rather than telling them the truth? Should I ignore my experience in this area and just pretend that everything will work out fine with $300 worth of CD player and headphones? If that's what you are suggesting, you have a strange idea of what "help" is.
Hmm....good points...I guess I never thought about it being more than a play button and some cheap speakers...
Most museums are loathe to use speakers as it interrupts the thoughts and conversations of patrons. It constributes to general noise pollution, which is something that they try to keep down. Imagine what happens when there is an exhibit with 20 stops, each of which has its own speakers. Kind of scary. A one-stop is a different matter, but speakers are still likely to be frowned on.
I call troll. Why can't he do it cheap and himself?
Because the ruggedized equipment needed is not available at a low price -- and producing it entails plastics molding, machining, design, testing, prototyping, etc.
Let the exhibit start with this and then upgrade as they go.
1. You are mistaking initial purchase price for total cost. If they have a dozen consumer-grade headphones and three go out per day due to breakage and theft, the real cost is huge. That's not unrealistic with kids, people used to industrial-quality equipment in public places, etc. The commercial stuff with the big ticket price is less costly than consumer stuff in the real world -- especially when you factor in costs for museum staff to maintain the fragile consumer stuff.
2. A museum is unlikely to get much money to upgrade an exhibit that's already open. It's not like a start-up business. A bunch of consumer-quality headphones, many of which are broken at any given time, is unlikely to generate enough income to ever fund proper equipment.
Just becuase something is from a name-brand company doesnt mean that he can't make it for cheaper himself.
It has nothing to do with the brand name. It has to do with the cost of manufacturing ruggedized audio devices in low quantities. There are no headphones at Best Buy, Circuit City, or Fry's that are going to hold up to kids yanking on cords, people dropping them multiple times per day, the cord being pulled tight, and so forth.
It may not come with whiz-bang feature X but if it gets the job done, stop complaining how a wal-mart phone will put pay-phone companies out of business
It won't get the job done and I'm not complaining about anything. Put a Walmart phone outside of a convenience store in place of a real pay phone and it will be broken, vandalized, or stolen with 12 hours. Same thing if you put consumer-grade headphones and CD players (or MP3 players) to handle a museum exhibition.
I think this is supposed to be more along the lines of a listening booth.
I was aware of that, but the same concerns exist: equipment theft, vandalism, rough handling, extremely heavy usage, compatability with hearing aids, usability by untrained users, etc. The link provided in the article takes people to the SoundStik Systems web page. The audio devices that they make have rugged ABS housings, available armored cables, and come with Lexan hangers. You could probably pound nails with them and not destroy them. You just don't find that in consumer-grade products.
"What you're advocating is analogous to companies refusing to fix natural gas leaks because the consumer is stealing gas from them using black-pipe illegaly connected to some official company's pipe. Explain that to the neighbors when his house blows up and takes out their homes, cars, or family members."
Bad analogy. Microsoft caused the security holes in Windows. In your example, the leak is implied to be the fault of an incompetent thief -- not the fault of the gas company. I used the "behind in their payments" analogy to avoid that logical fallacy. Your analogy would be valid if the SW pirates were causing security flaws by their piracy, but they are not. The flaws are in the released product.
(and I also provide explanation for neighbours: "He is/was using our property illegaly without contract with us or permission from us. What's more, he did it without necessary technical skills and knowledge.
You have no evidence whatsoever that a user of a pirated copy of Windows has less technical skill or knowledge than someone who has a purchased copy. In fact, I'd bet that the average person who has pirated Windows XP has more technical skill and knowledge than the average Windows XP user. Don't blame the end-user, whether a licensee or a SW pirate, for Microsoft's security holes.
His actions harmed you. His actions harmed also us. We should join forces and and sue him to hell.
No. The pirate's actions *may* have harmed Microsoft, but Microsofts action of creating a system specifically to deny security patches *will* harm everyone else. If Microsoft hadn't actively denied the patches to the SW pirate, then the system wouldn't be spewing viruses and costing others time, bandwidth, and money.
As I alredy wrote: "For sure, there will be short-range benefits in allowing [them] to use those patches". That means that if patches are not provided, there is immediate harm done to innocent people.
And what right does Microsoft have to inflict harm on you, me, or others who are not pirates? The Internet is like a highway. I don't care if you stole your Ford Explorer or are behind in your payments -- Ford has no right to put everyone else on the road at risk by refusing to replace the defective Firestone Wilderness A/T tires.
Slashdot Mirror
Such as "conspiracy to commit" or "accessory to", laws specifically designed for cases like this.
If you leave a loaded gun on your porch and a total stranger uses it to shoot someone, you may be guilty of negligence, but you are not an accessory to murder nor did you engage in a conspiracy to commit murder. How do you propose that the prosecution prove the the author "conspired" with a total stranger who pulled up in front of his house in a van with a laptop and with whom he never communicated?
Having deliberately deactivated his security and explicitly said he did so that criminal activity cannot be traced to any person, all the prosecution need to prove is the activity happened over his connection. He's an accessory, and he's in trouble.
Subtle difference: If the RIAA sues him, whether rightly or wrongly, he has plausible deniability in court. You have to remember that these are the same scumballs who sued an elderly couple who don't even own a computer. Sure, the elderly couple got off, but what happens to the guy who does own a computer and a WiFi network? He's facing a tremendous legal risk -- even if he never downloaded any copyrighted material. He even said, in the article: "So why am I doing this? In a word, privacy."
If the Department of Homeland Security comes knocking at your door because your connection was used for a suspicious Google Search, would you rather be able to point to an open WiFi connection or be locked up with no attorney as an "enemy combatent"? If you click on a link and it opens 100+ porn windows, some for kiddie porn sites, would you rather try to convince a jury that it was an innocent mistake or convince a judge that your open WiFi connection means that the case should be dismissed?
Unfortunately, I think this only applies when you *don't do it on purpose*. From my point of view, if you design a network solely for the purpose of relieving yourself of responsibility for what traverses your network, you are pretty much screwed once you get to court.
The prosecution must prove that you committed a crime, not that you tried to make their job difficult. They can't convict you for something just because you tried to obsfuscate your actions or gain plausible deniability.
As the article title says, "safe and insecure." The author has decreased the risk he faces from lawsuits launched by the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, SPA, etc., in exchange for reduced network security.
Where he is in grave danger is from his ISP, which could cancel his account in a moment should they get a DMCA complaint, spam complaint, hacking complaint, DoS complaint, or virus complaint tied to his IP address. The courts have to give him due process. His ISP does not.
They're flammable and they originate mere inches from our cell phones.
There you go talking out of your ass again.
Instead of looking for some way to make money from Open Source, how about looking for a market need and selling a product or service that addresses that need?
I guess the question you have to ask yourself is whether you are looking for a business or a hobby. If it's a business, then follow the money. Looking for a way to make money with open source is like deciding that you want to win at a track and field event while wearing galoshes. You might manage to win despite the galoshes, but you'd be better off deciding on an event and then choosing the best footwear for it.
Ok, I'm confused. Is being a monopoly all about the amount of money you can charge for a product in theory or in practice? Or is it about competition?
It's about both. If you have a monopoly, then you can increase the price on your product beyond what the market would bear were there competitive pressures. That is why the government and courts get involved to protect consumers.
It is quite amusing to take a step back and read our dialogue. All of this armchair-business and armchair-propaganda. Slashdot is usually good for a laugh, and not much more. The world is much more complicated than the views expressed here.
I can think of no better illustration of that point than your posting.
A I'm not familiar with the laws in effect here,
Apparently not. Here is an article that reads:
Microsoft settles Minnesota antitrust pricing suit
The trial in that case began last month
News Story by Joris Evers
APRIL 19, 2004 (IDG NEWS SERVICE) - Microsoft Corp. has reached a preliminary settlement in a class-action lawsuit in Minnesota that alleged that the company abused its Windows monopoly to overcharge customers in the state for its software.
As a result of the settlement, the trial, which began March 15, has been concluded and the jury has been discharged, according to a statement on the Hennepin County District Court Web site. The terms of the settlement will remain confidential until finalized sometime in early July, according to the statement.
The Minnesota case is one of several class-action lawsuits brought against Microsoft on behalf of consumers in the wake of the U.S. government's antitrust case that the vendor had been unable to settle or get dismissed.
Cases in Arizona, New Mexico and Iowa could still be headed for trial, and the Nebraska Supreme Court last month reversed earlier rulings that blocked a consumer class-action case in that state. In New York, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan, courts have initially declined to certify classes of consumers, but plaintiffs are appealing those decisions, Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said.
Cases in Vermont and Massachusetts are also still active but not as close to going to trial as the Arizona, New Mexico and Iowa cases, because classes of consumers have not yet been certified, according to Desler.
In settlements reached with lawyers representing consumers in states including California, Tennessee, North Dakota, South Dakota and Kansas, Microsoft agreed to make vouchers available to customers who bought Microsoft software during a specific time period. The vouchers can be used to buy computer software or hardware.
As part of the settlements, Microsoft has always denied any wrongdoing. In earlier statements, the company had also denied it did anything wrong in Minnesota.
Opening arguments in the Minnesota case began March 15. The court had allotted three months for the trial. Microsoft had said that it might call Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer to testify as part of its defense. Because of the settlement, the trial was concluded before Microsoft had even started to present its defense.
Trial exhibits in the Minnesota case will be available on the court's Web site until April 26. The documents offer an insight into Microsoft's business, back to the early days of the company when it was peddling DOS.
Actually, they do have the right. They are not regulated by any entity in the world, and there are no laws constricting them as to pricing their product.
How the f*** did you learn to post on Slashdot before learning to search on Google? Here's just one link that proves that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground with regards to this subject. In case your clicking skills are as impressive as your Google skills, here's the article:
Microsoft settles Minnesota antitrust pricing suit
The trial in that case began last month
News Story by Joris Evers
APRIL 19, 2004 (IDG NEWS SERVICE) - Microsoft Corp. has reached a preliminary settlement in a class-action lawsuit in Minnesota that alleged that the company abused its Windows monopoly to overcharge customers in the state for its software.
As a result of the settlement, the trial, which began March 15, has been concluded and the jury has been discharged, according to a statement on the Hennepin County District Court Web site. The terms of the settlement will remain confidential until finalized sometime in early July, according to the statement.
The Minnesota case is one of several class-action lawsuits brought against Microsoft on behalf of consumers in the wake of the U.S. government's antitrust case that the vendor had been unable to settle or get dismissed.
Cases in Arizona, New Mexico and Iowa could still be headed for trial, and the Nebraska Supreme Court last month reversed earlier rulings that blocked a consumer class-action case in that state. In New York, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan, courts have initially declined to certify classes of consumers, but plaintiffs are appealing those decisions, Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said.
Cases in Vermont and Massachusetts are also still active but not as close to going to trial as the Arizona, New Mexico and Iowa cases, because classes of consumers have not yet been certified, according to Desler.
In settlements reached with lawyers representing consumers in states including California, Tennessee, North Dakota, South Dakota and Kansas, Microsoft agreed to make vouchers available to customers who bought Microsoft software during a specific time period. The vouchers can be used to buy computer software or hardware.
As part of the settlements, Microsoft has always denied any wrongdoing. In earlier statements, the company had also denied it did anything wrong in Minnesota.
Opening arguments in the Minnesota case began March 15. The court had allotted three months for the trial. Microsoft had said that it might call Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer to testify as part of its defense. Because of the settlement, the trial was concluded before Microsoft had even started to present its defense.
Trial exhibits in the Minnesota case will be available on the court's Web site until April 26. The documents offer an insight into Microsoft's business, back to the early days of the company when it was peddling DOS.
They have every right to adjust their prices to reflect these additional costs.
Actually, no, they do not. This is yet another example of them abusing their monopoly position within the marketplace. That's what all of the legal action has been about.
That's easy: With Post-it notes on monitor bezels.
I have a VW TDI too. As for "lower TCO," the $50 oil changes (if you use the recommended full-synthetic with diesel additive package) make up for the fuel economy
I own a 2002 Golf TDI and I just don't understand your math. The recommended oil changes are every 10,000 miles, or about $500 for 100,000 miles (using your $50 figure). During that 100,000 miles, you've probably had no trouble maintaining 45mpg -- even if you drive aggressively. Right now, diesel is about $1.80 average per gallon with regular gasoline being about $.10 higher. But let's call the two equal in price for simplicity.
In 100,000 miles at 45mpg, you've used 2,222 gallons of diesel fuel. Let's compare that to a Honda Civic, which you can figure about 35mpg in (I'm being generous). The Honda would have used 2,857 gallons of gasoline. At $1.80 per gallon, that's $4,000 of fuel for the VW TDI and $5,142 in fuel for the Honda -- a difference of over $1,100. The Honda calls for a timing belt at about 90K to 105K miles, so if it hasn't had a belt already, it will have one soon. Also consider that, while the cost of oil changes may be less on the Honda (by using a non-synthetic), the changes are made more frequently, probably about every 5,000 to 7,500 miles, probably. I don't know about you, but my time is worth something and filling up the tank less frequently and changing oil less frequently is worth $$$ to me.
Next, consider longevity. Because diesel fuel is basically an oil, it lubricates the cylinders rather than scouring the lubrication off of them. That leads to a much greater engine longevity, on average, than gasoline engines enjoy. If you keep your car long enough, you need to consider the cost of an engine overhaul happening sooner with a comparable gas engine. Even if you don't, it's a lot easier to sell a high-mileage diesel than it is to sell a high-mileage gasoline engine car. The TDI VWs tend to hold their resale value much better than their gasoline engined counterparts.
I think that the TDI is a great deal that only gets better with rising fuel prices.
But Microsoft did not connect machines of those users to the Internet. Nor did they installed their faulty OS on those machines. Nor did they powered on those PCs. ... Microsoft may be monopoly, but current situation is not that much bad as that MS is responsible for every PC on Earth. (which is of course not argument for dissasembly of anti-monopoly government bodies :)
Firestone did not drive those Ford Explorers out onto the highway. Nor did they install their faulty tires on those SUVs. Nor did they start up those SUVs...
It's just the same. MS made a faulty OS and Firestone made faulty tires. Each should be responsible for fixing their mistakes. I really don't care if someone pirated their copy of Windows, got it with their PC, or bought it retail. MS has no right to knowingly put innocent third parties at risk by denying patches to people when they know damned well that the majority of those people are going to continue using their OS.
So to close that up: Current situation with malware outbrakes is after all responsibility of customers of Microsoft - if there was, is not and wont be any demand for nice-looking, over-featured, buggy and insecure operating systems and applications, there wont be Microsoft with US$50 billion in cash doing next to nothing to cover the costs of their mistakes.
I don't see it as the fault of customers. They bought Windows because it came with their PC or was the only OS that ran the software that they needed. It's all well and good to talk about the joy of Open Source Software and operating systems, but if an end-user needs to run a Windows VPN client supplied by their work, relies on TaxCut to prepare their taxes, or has Windows-only software to control their telescope, they really don't have a choice.
This mess is the fault of Microsoft and the government. The FTC, the courts, and the Congress should long ago have declared software a product and, as such, subject to the same rules as any other product. It's ridiculous that Mattel toys are held to higher standards of performance than Windows. The whole license-to-use weasel words are what has allowed Microsoft to make security and stability back-burner issues. Make them responsible for data loss and damages caused by flaws in their OS and they will stop releasing buggy versions of Windows.
You will be happy to know that I just called my favorite tech support line and spoke to someone in India. I had trouble understanding everything he said, but I did catch his name: "Jimmy."
Jimmy worked with me for about 30 minutes on the question of protecting computers from lightning and then passed the call on to his supervisor, "Susan", who also had a very thick accent. According to what I was told by Susan and Jimmy, all one has to do in the case of a lightning strike is type about 40 commands starting with "ipconfig" and ending with "path." If there is no response to any of the commands, the answer is to unplug the computer, wait two minutes, and then plug it back in again.
Surprisingly, that's the same answer I've received from them for everything from a dead cable modem connection to RAM parity errors...
Try telling that to the "real" editors at Oxford University Press, USA TODAY, Springer, the Washington Post, Newsday, the Associated Press, etc., etc.
I would be happy to. Send them my way.
Proofreader's marks still have their purpose, but to say that they are de rigueur for pro editing just ain't right -- newspapers and book publishers have been using online text editing systems for well over a decade.
My significant other is a professional editor and writer. She worked for Time-Life Books as an employee for 15 years -- first as a researcher, then as a writer, and finally as an editor. She was with them until the merger with AOL when they began shutting down the book division. Edits were always done with pen and paper.
Since leaving there, she has worked for many clients and is currently working on a project for a top-tier book publisher. Editing is still done via faxes and handwritten proofreading marks.
Perhaps you are mistaking content editors with copy editors.
Yes it does. China is one of those countries that increases emissions.
More right-wing lies. Kyoto would have allowed China to increase emissions. It would not have, as you claimed, required it. When a country is largely agrarian and becoming industrialized, of course the emissions will increase -- or industrialization will grind to a halt. It's like demanding that everyone, including infants, never be allowed to have larger shoes and then claiming it's fair to everyone.
I'm the lunatic left's worst nightmare: an informed voter.
You're just another illogical, lie-spewing, distorting, right-wing, corporate schill.
Touché. Hadn't thought about that.
Thanks, but I'm really not trying to score points. I am just trying to provide some help in a subject area where I have some knowledge.
Perhaps your view is skewed by your association with the aforementioned prestigious museum? Not all museums are well-supported by foundations and donations. The small, narrow-focus museums have to watch every dime, and sometimes charge admission.
Then maybe an audio stop is a bit too ambitious for their budgets. When there is a tight budget, it's all the more important that they don't waste their precious funds on delicate, theft-prone consumer gear. Unless it's the "Museum of AV Technology", it's likely that the volunteers are older, retired people who have VCRs that flash "12:00" continuously and who call refrigerators "ice boxes." Expecting them to be able to diagnose and repair an intermittant audio output or a dead channel spanning multiple headphones is just pure fantasy.
I don't want to rain on someone's parade, but neither do I want to pretend that I don't see the ominous, dark clouds approaching the parade route. The equipment costs a lot to buy because it costs a lot to make equipment that is suitable for public use. Most of the time, it's a lot cheaper to buy or rent appropriate equipment than it is to try to use fragile consumer grade stuff.
I think a major un-asked question here is how long does this exhibit have to last? "Ruggedized equipment" costs a bundle, but it's designed to stand up to years of hard use - overkill if we're talking about days or weeks here.
If the exhibit will only be up for a very short time, rent pro equipment.
Who the hell uses a fax machine anymore anyways???
Normal businesses and people, that's who.
When an editor wants to send back a marked-up piece of copy, they do it by fax. Any real editor in the world will tell you that you don't edit online. You do it with proofreaders' marks, circles, arrows, writing in between lines, etc.
If you are, or are dealing with, a lawyer, a real-estate agent, or anyone who works with contracts, you exchange the contracts via fax. (Typing your name in e-mail doesn't count as a signature.)
The business world still relies on faxes because they work better than e-mail for many purposes.
Most people don't have sheetfeed scanners, so they can't put a 15 page document in their scanner and just walk away. They have to feed it page by page, so don't even bother with the use-a-scanner-and-e-mail-it line.
Why not spend some time on Google and come up with your own links supporting your position?
I already did that earlier in the thread.
But that's an ugly trap that I've fallen into before. Someone posts an ill-informed opinion with no substantiating links and I reply with links. Rather than finding links to counter those that I posted, they attack the links I provided with claims that the authors were biased, that their opinion did not represent the mainstream thinking of scientists, etc. Suddenly, their position is the de-facto "correct" position and it's my job to disprove it.
Better yet, why not abandon the debate before getting to the point of personal attacks? Are you afraid that other readers might think that you have "lost" the argument in some way?
Maybe that's part of it. Sadly, "the last word" means far too much to many readers.
That equipment sounds nice, but it's not very relevant to the OP's needs. He/she is building listening stations. The equipment is fixed in position so the complicated bits - the CD-players, computers of what have you - don't need to be rugged like the handsets in your museum. They can be put in cabinets to protect them from the proles.
A listening station either has to have speakers (a very bad idea in most museum situations, where noise is an issue) or it has to have a personal listening device. If it's corded headphones, that's your weak link.
A CD-player may eventually wear out (moving parts) but an MP3 player should last virtually forever.
Agreed -- provided that the public can't touch it or any of its buttons.
I have little experience of running more than one sound-card under Linux, but my first approach would be to see how many soundcards I could fit in a 200mhz box (I've several lying around).
Even fast PCs are cheap now, so that shouldn't be an issue. I'd probably go for external USB sound devices. They can be had for less than $50. Creative has some. I'd make sure that they have the oomph to drive the headphones to a loud level (for the hearing-impaired). That also brings up the issue of providing volume controls on a per-listener basis.
But I still recommend against this if the museum is open to the public.
Do you need to cater for people with hearing aids (e.g. installing loop systems).
The ADA requires it, but the professional audio tour gear is all pretty much hearing aid compatible.
Also think about hackability. Will you move on and leave the museum people with a system that they don't understand and can't modify or repair? If I used the PC approach, I would be tempted to burn the software onto a bootable CD-rom. That way, even if the hard-disks crash and the computers die, someone savvy will probably be able to build a replacement machine. Document everything you do, explaining precisely how it works.
Good advice, but I'm still very leery of the entire thing. If it was really practical to do this commercially, then the existing companies would have a lot more low-cost competition.
From a theoretical standpoint, I'd go for a CD-booting distro with no hard drive required. Even better, boot from a USB flash drive. The only rotating parts would be fans. But, again, I would never propose it to any museum with which I am familiar.
The phone analogy is good, but backwards. This situation seems more akin to installing a new payphone in your living room, rather than using a cheap phone from Wal-Mart.
My analogy was dead-nuts on. It was putting cheap consumer-grade electronics (a Walmart phone) into a public place (outside of a convenience store). That's exactly what we're talking about here. Is your living room a public place? Is your living room frequented by strangers? Is your living room equipped with electronics that random strangers are allowed to operate? No, but a museum is.
The museum in question cannot afford to waste an extra few thousand dollars on features, reliability, and personnel that it doesn't need.
Quality and reliability are not a waste of money and it is musueum personnel who would have to guard, man, replace, and repair a system cobbled together from components at a consumer electronics stores. It's museum personnel who would have to deal with all of the headphones going silent at once when some rugrat yanks his headphone cord, breaking the insulation and shorting signal to ground, taking out the output stage of the amp, etc., etc., etc. It's museum personnel who would have to replace the headphones that were stolen when some hoodlum cut the cord and put the headphones under his coat. It's the museum that would have to find, purchase, and install new foam earpads when the public ripped them up (or off) in about a week. It's the museum personnel who would have to clean the earwax from the foam earpads (something not used on the professional equipment) every day. The list goes on and on.
You have a false sense of economy. It's cheaper to buy something appropriate for the job, even if it's more costly initially, than it is to purchase inappropriate, delicate consumer electronics that will be constantly in need of repair or replacement.
They are asking Slashdotters for free help over the Internet, after all.
So do you suggest that I just tell them what they want to hear rather than telling them the truth? Should I ignore my experience in this area and just pretend that everything will work out fine with $300 worth of CD player and headphones? If that's what you are suggesting, you have a strange idea of what "help" is.
Hmm....good points...I guess I never thought about it being more than a play button and some cheap speakers...
Most museums are loathe to use speakers as it interrupts the thoughts and conversations of patrons. It constributes to general noise pollution, which is something that they try to keep down. Imagine what happens when there is an exhibit with 20 stops, each of which has its own speakers. Kind of scary. A one-stop is a different matter, but speakers are still likely to be frowned on.
I call troll. Why can't he do it cheap and himself?
Because the ruggedized equipment needed is not available at a low price -- and producing it entails plastics molding, machining, design, testing, prototyping, etc.
Let the exhibit start with this and then upgrade as they go.
1. You are mistaking initial purchase price for total cost. If they have a dozen consumer-grade headphones and three go out per day due to breakage and theft, the real cost is huge. That's not unrealistic with kids, people used to industrial-quality equipment in public places, etc. The commercial stuff with the big ticket price is less costly than consumer stuff in the real world -- especially when you factor in costs for museum staff to maintain the fragile consumer stuff.
2. A museum is unlikely to get much money to upgrade an exhibit that's already open. It's not like a start-up business. A bunch of consumer-quality headphones, many of which are broken at any given time, is unlikely to generate enough income to ever fund proper equipment.
Just becuase something is from a name-brand company doesnt mean that he can't make it for cheaper himself.
It has nothing to do with the brand name. It has to do with the cost of manufacturing ruggedized audio devices in low quantities. There are no headphones at Best Buy, Circuit City, or Fry's that are going to hold up to kids yanking on cords, people dropping them multiple times per day, the cord being pulled tight, and so forth.
It may not come with whiz-bang feature X but if it gets the job done, stop complaining how a wal-mart phone will put pay-phone companies out of business
It won't get the job done and I'm not complaining about anything. Put a Walmart phone outside of a convenience store in place of a real pay phone and it will be broken, vandalized, or stolen with 12 hours. Same thing if you put consumer-grade headphones and CD players (or MP3 players) to handle a museum exhibition.
I think this is supposed to be more along the lines of a listening booth.
I was aware of that, but the same concerns exist: equipment theft, vandalism, rough handling, extremely heavy usage, compatability with hearing aids, usability by untrained users, etc. The link provided in the article takes people to the SoundStik Systems web page. The audio devices that they make have rugged ABS housings, available armored cables, and come with Lexan hangers. You could probably pound nails with them and not destroy them. You just don't find that in consumer-grade products.
"What you're advocating is analogous to companies refusing to fix natural gas leaks because the consumer is stealing gas from them using black-pipe illegaly connected to some official company's pipe. Explain that to the neighbors when his house blows up and takes out their homes, cars, or family members."
Bad analogy. Microsoft caused the security holes in Windows. In your example, the leak is implied to be the fault of an incompetent thief -- not the fault of the gas company. I used the "behind in their payments" analogy to avoid that logical fallacy. Your analogy would be valid if the SW pirates were causing security flaws by their piracy, but they are not. The flaws are in the released product.
(and I also provide explanation for neighbours: "He is/was using our property illegaly without contract with us or permission from us. What's more, he did it without necessary technical skills and knowledge.
You have no evidence whatsoever that a user of a pirated copy of Windows has less technical skill or knowledge than someone who has a purchased copy. In fact, I'd bet that the average person who has pirated Windows XP has more technical skill and knowledge than the average Windows XP user. Don't blame the end-user, whether a licensee or a SW pirate, for Microsoft's security holes.
His actions harmed you. His actions harmed also us. We should join forces and and sue him to hell.
No. The pirate's actions *may* have harmed Microsoft, but Microsofts action of creating a system specifically to deny security patches *will* harm everyone else. If Microsoft hadn't actively denied the patches to the SW pirate, then the system wouldn't be spewing viruses and costing others time, bandwidth, and money.
As I alredy wrote: "For sure, there will be short-range benefits in allowing [them] to use those patches". That means that if patches are not provided, there is immediate harm done to innocent people.
And what right does Microsoft have to inflict harm on you, me, or others who are not pirates? The Internet is like a highway. I don't care if you stole your Ford Explorer or are behind in your payments -- Ford has no right to put everyone else on the road at risk by refusing to replace the defective Firestone Wilderness A/T tires.