Well.. most naval ships can't carry much more than 20 cruise missles.. cuz.. u know.. they're these big bulky things with engines fuel and fins.
By way of comparison, if you place 3 of these guns on the deck of a cruiser, that cruiser can fire 30 cruise missle equivelants, eating up only the space required to house the shells. Since the shells are solid lumps of metal, about 3.2 kgs per.. well.. Nice! even if they go up to a 60lb slug, that's a significant gain in firepower
Then there is the "explosiveness" issue. Conventional armaments and missle weapons explode when hit by enemy fire. Rail gun pellets bounce around when hit. A modern battleship that used nuke reactors to charge two or three day batteries before shutting down the reactor to go into battle stations would be damn near impossible to sink. Classically, ships are sunk by finding their fuel, their ordinance, or blasting a big hole in the hull. Using solid state weapons and energy storage, we could eliminate both of the easy methods, and stiffen the hulls to take a direct hit from torpedo fire (when you'r 200 miles from the surface enemy, torpedo's are the real fear). Then the tactics shift to using drones to spot targets, while avoiding close in combat. Plunk plunk plunk plunk..
We're living in a world with two superpowers again - time to arm up.
They did a similar study a while ago in a bar. They would ask female volunteers to give a saliva sample and have their picture taken. Then they calculated the area of the body that showed skin and found a correlation between "showing more skin" and ovulation. So it's likely more than just wanting to feel pretty, I mean you don't go in a bar if you feel "bloated and cramping". To me it looks like women are more horny why they are ovulating, which makes perfect sense if you think in terms of evolution. Right.. because women just stop living one week out of every 4. Or, oh wait, they could just go out when they feel like that and try to have fun - you know, since they're not sick (like you would be if you were feeling like that) and there's no damn reason not to. But, no, probably not feeling all that "frisky."
At infinity:1 it's sensible to bet a buck that horse might spontaneously come back to life and win the race. That is approx. Pascal's Wager, if I have everything to gain in trying, and trying costs me so little as to be nothing, then no matter how odd or unlikely, Logic demands that I try.
Of course the wager involved belief in God instead of horses and bullshit lawsuits - but the correlation is amusing.
IBM will want to set the precedents involved in the case (which settlement wouldn't do). The precedent will be of limited value unless the loser chooses to appeal up to at least an appelate court. If SCO loses after bankruptcy - an appeal is less likely I'd think.
But then again.. how much did they pay their lawyers?
Its current share price is $1.19, giving a market cap of $25M. Since it's requesting at least $5 billion in damages, the market's view is that this outcome is a 40/1 shot. That's long odds in a 2 horse race. That's an interesting way of looking at it.. but it downplays the degree to which the market is risk-averse. Even if many stock brokers were to look at SCO and find them likely to win, such an award would be on the other side of several years of highly variable legal practice (the result can turn with new laws, new SC rulings, even if IBM were to find a new line of argument) - thus much more risk than an average broker would be willing to absorb.
Perhaps we can finally be rid of this specter once and for all?" Unless a "plausible" suit would be considered an asset by a bankruptcy court? I know the court won't let you give away corporate property generally.. anybody know?
We should consider pushing for new legislation that would make companies liable for any harm caused by "position paper" scientists.
If we view government as a tool to protect the citizen from harm (not all do), then it follows that Gov't should enourage behaviours which improve the lives of citizens, and discourage behaviours that harm citizens. Shaping science and opinion away from truth for the purposes of profit is a serious mal-adaption, which harms everyone. We should institute legislation which enables individuals in society to sue for harm caused either (a) as a direct result of reliance on a scientific claim funded with a policy goal (b) as a direct result of use of a product produced by the company, which would have been avoided if the company had not funded policy-guided science.
Burden of proof for the plaintiff should be high to discourage abuse, but the penalties should be a set percentage of the companies net value (so that no company could afford to risk this harm).
In order to prove their case, a plaintiff would have to produce a writing (electronic or paper) which demonstrates that the purpose of the study was to support a policy goal, and not to research the true state of the issue.
Thoughts?
While this may seem like a waste of time.. every law started with some idea kicked around by a couple folks somewhere.
That'd be because the UK's suffix is (drumroll please).uk! Stone the crows, it's a cor-blimey miracle guv. You never see.gb because that would be "Great Britain" which is a geographic, not political, designation. It's a quibbling point, but.gb actually was one of the original country codes for the UK. Wiki:
.gb is a reserved Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for the United Kingdom. Introduced at the same time as the UK's other top-level domain (.uk), it was never widely used, and as it is no longer possible to register under this domain, has since fallen into disuse. -GiH
The obvious answer is that the transaction happens in both places simultaneously. It's not an either/or situation. I think that's approx. what we've gotten out of the courts so far.
So, are you saying that Russian businesses and citizens should be subject to US law? When they conduct business in the U.S.? Absolutely.
I live in the USA and I would never support that line of thinking, since it basically removes ALL checks and balances globally, and eliminates the possibility of fleeing tyranny by crossing borders. I'm sorry to inform you that your knowledge of business law is lacking.
You are not a writer, so STFU. Actually, several of my D&D mods have gotten printed here and there, along with some blurb text and rules captions for a few games.. ergo, I am a writer:).
.com is not a US domain root, it is an international root mainly used for commerce. The US domain root is.us That's not to say the root servers aren't in the US, only that.com is international and not country specific. Point.
"blatantly using the law" -- that's a funny way to say "doing it legally" I'll assume you're not so stupid as to miss the vital importance of the changes you made to my words in you "quote" (if my assumption is wrong, my appologies to your caretaker), and are therefore fudding, or just stroking the old ego stick. Blatantly using Russian Law (as opposed to say, U.S. law, which.. you know.. usually applies to deals made in the U.S.) isn't hiding behind legitimate authority, it's just trying to confuse and muddle an issue so sad saps like you can feel like it was wrong to shut them down.
Gabriel believes that making the pricing information public would 'implicate [sic] very real antitrust concerns'
But doesn't this basically mean "if we told everyone the price then people would know it was illegal!" Haven't read the full text through yet (working on it) but.. I think the answer is.. no.
Basically their argument goes "we're not suppose to know what each other's prices are.. so we can't tell you either cuz then we'd all know."
Of course, only Lawyers may even think about law. Personally, as a lawyer-in-training, I fully endorse, support, and approve of this idea!! Can we legislate that?:) WOO HOO I'ma be rich mama! I'ma be rich!!
More seriously:
Of course Slashdot is not a lawyer, but it is silly to propose that only lawyers and judges can have a valid interest in, and discussion of, legal matters that affect all citizens. In fact many laws are actually written by people who aren't necessarily lawyers. These people who dare insert themselves in the legal arena without the requirement of having a law degree are called "legislators." It's also called "public debate," you know that funny thing that the 4th branch of gov't (aka the press) is supposed to engender. But in the modern clutter of divissive politics and the "nobody knows what to do but experts so STFU NEWB" culture that is evolving, we're running for trouble.
A great example of a wonderful U.S. legislator was Benjamin Franklin - He was also the U.S.'s key scientist and one of her great publishers of news and raw data. Technologist should adopt Franklin as their Patron of Thought - because the man delivered for engineering, science, philosophy, theology, and political science. The same brain that can brilliantly explain and master the formation of distributive processing and Wide Area Networks could do a great deal of good for this nation by injecting simple practical knowledge of what the internet, and the future hold in store for law and the U.S.
You Are Not A Laywer. So please stop being the tool for this lawyer and his celebrity seeking habits (what is this, the 2nd article published this week from this guy?). You're going to say that slashdot readers don't LOVE to argue about this case? That it dosen't drive hits and discussions like nobodies buisiness?(If you do, you're wrong, check the past few articles for hit-count and the suprising number of interesting items posted under them.)
Slashdot is edutainment - and these articles deliver.
If they only make $0.70 wouldn't that imply that for the damages of 1.5 trillion from AllOfMP3.com would only be justified if AllOfMP3.com had uploaded over 2 trillion copies of songs to their users?
That would mean if there are 6 billion people in the would that everyone would have had to of downloaded 333 songs. This is not about actual damages and all about putting allofmp3 out of business. $150,000 per song is just the maximum amount defined under statute. I suspect requesting the maximum from AllofMP3 has alot more to do with getting into newspapers (and thus reminding us all that the RIAA is watching you) then getting the money. The reward is likely to be less.. if they win.. which they may very well do.
Slashdot posturing aside, there's plenty of "common sense" (aka nonsense - but judges and jurries do consider how things look to them) in favor of the argument that AllOfMp3 was pretty blatantly using Russian law as a shield and attempting to circumvent U.S. Law by creating host drives (thus, not sending files directly into the U.S.). At the end of the day, they drove business toward the U.S., offered their prices in U.S. dollars, and registered a U.S. domain root. (.com) Standing up for these guys is a little hard.. when they're basically just telling the U.S. companies that paid to produce this music that they have no say in the pricing, or distribution of their material.
why did they waste time on this inane task? because of people. like. you.
as much as i dislike apple, the don't give a crap about how their users felt about the old version of their software. Apple will if needed, move things around, change control types and looks and feels if it improves their software and user experience. it is for this reason that people look to apple for "progressive". The same people that look to apple in this way then stand and point at microsoft "The PC" and accuse them of being slow, lumbering and not innovative.
what is clear now is that it is not Microsoft that is slow and lumbering it is their customer base and their resitence to change. we've seen this cry twice recently once with IE 7, and now with Office 2007. i for one, hope this trend continues. I am amused and bemused by the assumption that an OSS advocate would be change averse. I am for the conversion of software to an open format because I believe that operating systems and core office functionality are (like roads) too important to our future success as a species to be left in the hands of profit seeking agents. Taking a profit on building, improving, constructing these operating systems is fine (capitalism is my friend - at least if I want to die rich, happy, and well fed) but we need to keep the source free and ready to be improved by another. The resulting product (the code) is used best in the service of people if it can be examined, improved, advanced, secured by the public at large.
I notice you use the classic Mac v. PC arechotype of suit v. artist division of users. I use a PC at home (gaming, general web surfing, development and design) and a MacBook for travel (more gaming, web surfing, more development, writing, whatever). I keep a room full of linux servers (old PCs mostly) a few old macs, and a sun Solaris box to play with. Ultimately, all operating systems are interchangeable. They need to be more integrated, more consistently interoperable - but they can each be adapted for the task at hand with a little work and a little coding.
Now, back to the topic at hand, you suggest that I am punishing MS for being innovative, for moving forward. You are wrong - I am suggesting that now is a time to seize upon the momentary advantadge created by the corporate mentality (cling to what you know works) and the gap between expected and new functionality. I'm not suggesting that this should be done because Microsoft's innovations are contra-productive or poorly concieved, but rather because I am an advocate for a competing software (movement instead of company) and this instant of oppourtunity is when ANY good salesman would step in to swing for the bleachers. "Think MS just bent you over? We won't bend you over!" Truth, and fiction, are both abused in the sale of software. MS does it, so does nearly every salesman. The OSS movement tends toward honesty (to its credit) but this dosen't proclude those who want to see change from going OH, OUR MOMENT ARRIVES! and leaping on corporate fear of change to introduce a truly "progressive" move to software which iterates faster, grows in response to customer needs, and ultimately is in fact free (as in birds).
Collabrative softwear, like collabrative movements (wiki's for example) are going to be the way of the future. Getting your company there now is a good thing.
-GiH Yes.. I know there are stars in my eyes, thanks.
Same old, same old doesn't necessarily mean better, as you seem to think. I don't believe it's always better to stay with what we know, but most corporations do. So, I'll gladdly exploit the corporate mentality to inject some OSS into the mainstream. Gladdly, joyously, and with a great big rye grin.
Sweet! Radical change to the interface away from the comfortable and familiar to the regular user sounds like a sudden and abrupt shock to me. Open Office has served me well for several years now, replacing MSoffice, and costing about zip. Same style of interface, same functionality - and the open document format.
This is probably a good time for OSS advocates in the corporate enviroment to bring the alternative up. Radical changes mean retraining, and retraining means wasting money. You might also push the "free" as in beer angle, or the faster development cycle producing new versions faster. Open Office dosen't have as many (known) exploits. Any other good selling points I'm missing?
Why make the obviously flawed drug analogy then? It's a possesion charge, just like downloading music. Having a copy of copyrighted music is defacto illegal (just like pot). You required a license authorizing your possesion and use of copyrighted material in order to legally posses or use it (just like pot). Lacking the license, simple possesion (you have the material, you're guilty) is sufficient to prove the case (just like pot). There are much higher charges for distributing music than simple possesion (just like pot), and therefore the enforcing agency (here the copyright owner, in pot the government) tends to overlook simple possesion and focus on those who distribute (just like pot).
So tell me.. how is it not an apt analogy oh great oracle of law?
Owning out of region media is not illegal, modding your player to play out of region media is.
The music you download is legal IF AllofMP3's argument holds in court. Your argument is circular - first presuming the subject's innocence, then declaring innocence based on the innocent nature of the subject. Yes, if AllofMP3 has not broken the law by selling music in the united states for which it does not own the copyright - nor has it reached an agreement with the copyright holder - then there is no crime. However, since point of sale is considered "presence" within the united states, and since internet vendors who direct buisiness into the states are subject to our laws and our courts, AllofMp3's innocence is not assured.
I'm not a RIAA fan, but I am a law student - AllofMP3 and it's customers were engaged in a dramatic dance that looks like a pretty blatant attempt to skirt U.S. laws. You buy music to a HD in Russia, because then the sale is in Russia? Sure.. try that argument in court. You can believe what you want - but the legal arguments here aren't cut and dry.
Is owning music illegal in the U.S.? Did you RTFC?
What if the foreign state (sea land) dosen't recognize copyright and you download 10,000 songs.. is it then still legal to bring these otherwise LEGAL and LEGITIMATE products in the region you aquired them wherever you want?
I don't think the RIAA's argument is absurd. It's a cop-out to try to dismiss it as such. There are significant legal issues involved, not the least of which is the questionable power invested in the Russian agency which negotiated with AllofMp3 to create an agreement which is binding on U.S. companies. Owning music is fine, possesing stolen music tracks, or making copies of stolen music, is not.
OSX isn't an alternative OS, it's just another proprietary, commercial and mostly closed source OS. Oh, I'm sorry, you're right - I missed the part where MS converted to a BSD based infrastructure, and contributed large chunks of its code to the OSS comunity. Oh wait! Nope. That's still just OS X.
Yes, apple owns OS X and, yes, it would be bad if the monopoly simply switched into their hands - but I don't grade Operating Systems into "square" and "alternative" I seperate them into "massive market share" and "alternative." Unless some HUGE swing occoured in the last 5 months that somehow avoided being posted on slashdot, I'm gonna guess OS X is still a severly limited use OS. (aka, alternative)
11 months out of the year are the "Month of Windows Bugs" but your dad thinks OS X is less secure because of this? Microsoft is allowed to have shitty security - that is not part of their promise. OS X is the "it just works" system, which is a misnomer to begin with (I love trying to tranfser files directly from my iBook and my MacBook - will they see each other *this* time?) but when they are publicly blasted as NOT SECURE, that hurts the apple image more than it does MS.
For my father, it's a question of Insecure and buisiness as usual, or a big risk to go to another insecure OS. If Linux or Mac OS looked solid, secure, fiscally reasonable, and usable, it would be much easier to persuade him. (I talked him into trying out Open Office at least.. progress!)
The problem is that the decision makes are the majors, the real movers and shakers, are not young technologists. They don't have the time or interest that I have to pick up and play with it just for fun. It's not as simple for him to say "hmm, mac is making some nice laptops and dell's laptops have been sucking wind, let me give it a try" when it has to work or cost him real $$$. I know that *I* can make any machine running any OS do what I need to get my work done, he can't make that same assumption, and he can't risk bringing that kind of instability in along with a change - he's not responsible if the status quo sucks - that's to be assumed - but if he says "here try this" and it breaks - it dosen't matter that the old system used to break, the one he gave you broke. It's his fault, he should be fired. And so it goes.
You can attack the message if you want - but I've done that gig for 10 years, trying to persuade purchases to diversify their OS base to avoid vulnerability, only to recieve confused or upsett stares. When all the person you provide your service to can think of is "change is bad" the message can't be mixed - the new must be better than the old on as many fronts as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Well.. most naval ships can't carry much more than 20 cruise missles.. cuz.. u know.. they're these big bulky things with engines fuel and fins.
By way of comparison, if you place 3 of these guns on the deck of a cruiser, that cruiser can fire 30 cruise missle equivelants, eating up only the space required to house the shells. Since the shells are solid lumps of metal, about 3.2 kgs per.. well.. Nice! even if they go up to a 60lb slug, that's a significant gain in firepower
Then there is the "explosiveness" issue. Conventional armaments and missle weapons explode when hit by enemy fire. Rail gun pellets bounce around when hit. A modern battleship that used nuke reactors to charge two or three day batteries before shutting down the reactor to go into battle stations would be damn near impossible to sink. Classically, ships are sunk by finding their fuel, their ordinance, or blasting a big hole in the hull. Using solid state weapons and energy storage, we could eliminate both of the easy methods, and stiffen the hulls to take a direct hit from torpedo fire (when you'r 200 miles from the surface enemy, torpedo's are the real fear). Then the tactics shift to using drones to spot targets, while avoiding close in combat. Plunk plunk plunk plunk..
We're living in a world with two superpowers again - time to arm up.
-GiH
-GiH
Of course the wager involved belief in God instead of horses and bullshit lawsuits - but the correlation is amusing.
Yehp, I used to be a philosophy student..
-GiH
But then again.. how much did they pay their lawyers?
I am not a lawyer (I *am* a law student).
-GiH
I think. I am not a stock broker.
-GiH
-GiH
We should consider pushing for new legislation that would make companies liable for any harm caused by "position paper" scientists.
If we view government as a tool to protect the citizen from harm (not all do), then it follows that Gov't should enourage behaviours which improve the lives of citizens, and discourage behaviours that harm citizens. Shaping science and opinion away from truth for the purposes of profit is a serious mal-adaption, which harms everyone. We should institute legislation which enables individuals in society to sue for harm caused either (a) as a direct result of reliance on a scientific claim funded with a policy goal (b) as a direct result of use of a product produced by the company, which would have been avoided if the company had not funded policy-guided science.
Burden of proof for the plaintiff should be high to discourage abuse, but the penalties should be a set percentage of the companies net value (so that no company could afford to risk this harm).
In order to prove their case, a plaintiff would have to produce a writing (electronic or paper) which demonstrates that the purpose of the study was to support a policy goal, and not to research the true state of the issue.
Thoughts?
While this may seem like a waste of time.. every law started with some idea kicked around by a couple folks somewhere.
-GiH
.gb is a reserved Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for the United Kingdom. Introduced at the same time as the UK's other top-level domain (.uk), it was never widely used, and as it is no longer possible to register under this domain, has since fallen into disuse. -GiH-GiH
-GiH
-GiH
.com is not a US domain root, it is an international root mainly used for commerce. The US domain root is-GiH
-GiH
Basically their argument goes "we're not suppose to know what each other's prices are.. so we can't tell you either cuz then we'd all know."
I also could be wrong, flame away.
-GiH
More seriously: Of course Slashdot is not a lawyer, but it is silly to propose that only lawyers and judges can have a valid interest in, and discussion of, legal matters that affect all citizens. In fact many laws are actually written by people who aren't necessarily lawyers. These people who dare insert themselves in the legal arena without the requirement of having a law degree are called "legislators." It's also called "public debate," you know that funny thing that the 4th branch of gov't (aka the press) is supposed to engender. But in the modern clutter of divissive politics and the "nobody knows what to do but experts so STFU NEWB" culture that is evolving, we're running for trouble.
A great example of a wonderful U.S. legislator was Benjamin Franklin - He was also the U.S.'s key scientist and one of her great publishers of news and raw data. Technologist should adopt Franklin as their Patron of Thought - because the man delivered for engineering, science, philosophy, theology, and political science. The same brain that can brilliantly explain and master the formation of distributive processing and Wide Area Networks could do a great deal of good for this nation by injecting simple practical knowledge of what the internet, and the future hold in store for law and the U.S.
-GiH
Slashdot is edutainment - and these articles deliver.
-GiH
Not a Lawyer, just a Law Student.
Slashdot posturing aside, there's plenty of "common sense" (aka nonsense - but judges and jurries do consider how things look to them) in favor of the argument that AllOfMp3 was pretty blatantly using Russian law as a shield and attempting to circumvent U.S. Law by creating host drives (thus, not sending files directly into the U.S.). At the end of the day, they drove business toward the U.S., offered their prices in U.S. dollars, and registered a U.S. domain root. (.com) Standing up for these guys is a little hard.. when they're basically just telling the U.S. companies that paid to produce this music that they have no say in the pricing, or distribution of their material.
-GiH
I notice you use the classic Mac v. PC arechotype of suit v. artist division of users. I use a PC at home (gaming, general web surfing, development and design) and a MacBook for travel (more gaming, web surfing, more development, writing, whatever). I keep a room full of linux servers (old PCs mostly) a few old macs, and a sun Solaris box to play with. Ultimately, all operating systems are interchangeable. They need to be more integrated, more consistently interoperable - but they can each be adapted for the task at hand with a little work and a little coding.
Now, back to the topic at hand, you suggest that I am punishing MS for being innovative, for moving forward. You are wrong - I am suggesting that now is a time to seize upon the momentary advantadge created by the corporate mentality (cling to what you know works) and the gap between expected and new functionality. I'm not suggesting that this should be done because Microsoft's innovations are contra-productive or poorly concieved, but rather because I am an advocate for a competing software (movement instead of company) and this instant of oppourtunity is when ANY good salesman would step in to swing for the bleachers. "Think MS just bent you over? We won't bend you over!" Truth, and fiction, are both abused in the sale of software. MS does it, so does nearly every salesman. The OSS movement tends toward honesty (to its credit) but this dosen't proclude those who want to see change from going OH, OUR MOMENT ARRIVES! and leaping on corporate fear of change to introduce a truly "progressive" move to software which iterates faster, grows in response to customer needs, and ultimately is in fact free (as in birds).
Collabrative softwear, like collabrative movements (wiki's for example) are going to be the way of the future. Getting your company there now is a good thing.
-GiH
Yes.. I know there are stars in my eyes, thanks.
-GiH
Sweet! Radical change to the interface away from the comfortable and familiar to the regular user sounds like a sudden and abrupt shock to me. Open Office has served me well for several years now, replacing MSoffice, and costing about zip. Same style of interface, same functionality - and the open document format.
This is probably a good time for OSS advocates in the corporate enviroment to bring the alternative up. Radical changes mean retraining, and retraining means wasting money. You might also push the "free" as in beer angle, or the faster development cycle producing new versions faster. Open Office dosen't have as many (known) exploits. Any other good selling points I'm missing?
-GiH
So tell me.. how is it not an apt analogy oh great oracle of law?
-GiH
Owning out of region media is not illegal, modding your player to play out of region media is.
The music you download is legal IF AllofMP3's argument holds in court. Your argument is circular - first presuming the subject's innocence, then declaring innocence based on the innocent nature of the subject. Yes, if AllofMP3 has not broken the law by selling music in the united states for which it does not own the copyright - nor has it reached an agreement with the copyright holder - then there is no crime. However, since point of sale is considered "presence" within the united states, and since internet vendors who direct buisiness into the states are subject to our laws and our courts, AllofMp3's innocence is not assured.
I'm not a RIAA fan, but I am a law student - AllofMP3 and it's customers were engaged in a dramatic dance that looks like a pretty blatant attempt to skirt U.S. laws. You buy music to a HD in Russia, because then the sale is in Russia? Sure.. try that argument in court. You can believe what you want - but the legal arguments here aren't cut and dry.
-GiH
-GiH
Yes, apple owns OS X and, yes, it would be bad if the monopoly simply switched into their hands - but I don't grade Operating Systems into "square" and "alternative" I seperate them into "massive market share" and "alternative." Unless some HUGE swing occoured in the last 5 months that somehow avoided being posted on slashdot, I'm gonna guess OS X is still a severly limited use OS. (aka, alternative)
-GiH
For my father, it's a question of Insecure and buisiness as usual, or a big risk to go to another insecure OS. If Linux or Mac OS looked solid, secure, fiscally reasonable, and usable, it would be much easier to persuade him. (I talked him into trying out Open Office at least.. progress!)
The problem is that the decision makes are the majors, the real movers and shakers, are not young technologists. They don't have the time or interest that I have to pick up and play with it just for fun. It's not as simple for him to say "hmm, mac is making some nice laptops and dell's laptops have been sucking wind, let me give it a try" when it has to work or cost him real $$$. I know that *I* can make any machine running any OS do what I need to get my work done, he can't make that same assumption, and he can't risk bringing that kind of instability in along with a change - he's not responsible if the status quo sucks - that's to be assumed - but if he says "here try this" and it breaks - it dosen't matter that the old system used to break, the one he gave you broke. It's his fault, he should be fired. And so it goes.
You can attack the message if you want - but I've done that gig for 10 years, trying to persuade purchases to diversify their OS base to avoid vulnerability, only to recieve confused or upsett stares. When all the person you provide your service to can think of is "change is bad" the message can't be mixed - the new must be better than the old on as many fronts as possible.
-GiH