Try a building supply store. A lot of them have sheets of tine used for barn and garage roofs.
But the thing I've found is fishing weights, when melted down and "smoothed" into a sheet allow you to form a much heavier "sheet" that will fit perfectly into whatever envelope you need it to as you can form it yourself and you don't need to worry about cutting yourself.
What's that you say? No, I don't have too much time on my hands. I just enjoy a good case of vengeance.
Three words, "lead fishing sinkers". They are small, heavy, and fit inside the envelope so that no one will just throw it away at the post office.
I've heard that the brick idea doesn't get through a lot of the time and you are just wasting your effort. However, the lead sinkers will at least get to the company, and then they are actually billed for the shipping wieght.
Well, at one time when I looked into Evolution they had said they were developing a server for it too. But now all they say is that it supports LDAP. Blah! Who cares? I want to see a bells and whistles server that will make my idiot manager drool and wet his pants with excitement. God knows that the only way to impress those people is to just completely flabbergast them with flash. So, where's the flash. A client like this without a fully complete server architecture behind it is going to be useless in a busines situation.
I do know that the Evolution client is also being developed in conjunction with a server, but I am really curious as to why they rarely, if ever, mention the servers. Sure, they aren't the flashy/showy/wonderous things that everyone sees on the desktop, but to the people running the systems the server side is every bit as important (and in my mind would be a far more exciting) development. But, hopefully when they are "released" they will be nice and solid. When I get some time I throw one of them on my test network and check them out.
And if we have something with those bells and whistles available on Linux, that's great, but it does nothing without the Exchange server type functions. But, others have pointed out that it is in the works. I wonder why no one ever mentions that in these "press release" style posts.
The server side may not be flashy and sexy, but it is very important if we are going to show a "feature by feature" compatible or even comparable Outlook Killer.
I don't see people not having net access as a problem. You do. That's what I flamed you over.
The companies trying to make money off of it probably see it as a problem, but I don't think that a company's concerns should be the primary motivator of the human race. If there were a pressing need for the Internet, or if someone invented something that made the Internet much, much more important than it is (like I said, it's just a tool, a research tool, and people have far more reliable libraries for that).
As to whether the rebated PCs thing would work, here in the states it's been going on for more than a year and it hasn't worked yet. Some people just don't see the need for net access. Say what you will, until people start to see it as a need, the idea of wanting it won't really matter.
I would love to see an open-source Exchange killer. Hopefully someone will wake up long enough to drool out the phrase, Business like Outlook 'cause Exchange serve functions and actually do something about it.
And for those out there preparing a "DO IT YOURSELF DUMBASS" response, some of us already have plenty to do without having to code every piece of software we use from the ground up. Thank you very much.
Better yet would be having an Exchange server replacement on Linux. Something that can do all that garbage on the back-end that can hook up to these front-ends.
Look, we all want to see an Outlook killer on Linux. But let's face it. The reason people bitch about not having Outlook on Linux in the corporate world is mostly because of the calendaring/scheduling and collaboration type things they can do with Exchange server in the background. So, while I like the idea of having the Outlook Killer clients, when is someone going to really, really focus on the back end?
I want to see an Exchange killer in the back hooked up to one of these Outlook killer clients. Plus, I'd like to see it a little more sane/easier to administer. I'm not asking for more clickable items, I'm asking for sane permission structures (so I can keep Dave from resetting Betty's calendar without her permission), realistically tied together scheduling and a nicely followable format for the whole configuration.
I realize there are some albeit very, very small efforts under way to complete some projects along these lines. But there seems to be so much focus on the front end that no one really says squat about the server side requirements/code.
Until I hear that one of these packages is fully ready to tackle the Exchange/Outlook combo punch, I'll just keep plugging away with what I've got. Seperate server based calendaring, seperate e-mail, seperate collaboration, all a pain in the ass to accomplish, but usable. And constantly listening to my users bitch and moan because at that other company, "We used Outlook."
We get by with what we've got (and the boss liked the price tag, probably the only reason we are using Linux), but it sure would be nice to give the users something focused on their needs.
There is a problem: how to give cheap net access to the masses so that it becomes as common and easy to use as the telephone.
/rudeness on
Oh please...
Forget about world hunger, mid-eastern holy wars and homeless people, we need mass acceptence of the NET!
/rudeness off
Seriously, there are a huge number of people that just aren't interested in the Internet. Now, I'm not one of those people that thinks we should eliminate the desire to gain Internet access if it exists, but I don't really think that people are denying themselves the greatest thing humanity has ever created if they aren't on the Internet as often as possible. Some people just don't care one way or another. And if they aren't actively seeking Internet access, then I promise you that they are not going to be impressed when someone comes out with a "cheap" way to get online. Trust me, if they won't purchase the pay 500 get 400 back when you sign up for MSN computers at Office Max and Best Buy (and everywhere else) then they probably aren't going to plunk down the $400 that it would cost for this toy.
Now, I do expect Internet access to continually become more common place as time goes on. But I don't think there is any pressing need to get every person in the world attached to the Internet in some fashion. And apparently there are a large number of people that agree. Older people shrug over it, and many younger people that aren't into computers couldn't care less.
As to the panic that occassionally strikes when it is seen that Internet growth is slowing, it's not worth the panic it causes. The Internet isn't going to disappear because of a period of slow growth. Slow growth is still growth. Our economy is in a correctionary period right now. With the past few years of an ever increasing vitality, there was the necissity to either slow things a bit or brace for the inevitable crash. The growth of Internet access is in the same type of period right now. It isn't going to die if the people that are left without Internet access just shrug it off. Like it or not, it's here to stay. It's become too much of a money maker to just disappear. Some of the methods of making money over the Internet need to change, evolve and adapt because there aren't as many clueless people jumping on every day willing to fork over large sums of cash easily, but so what? The changes will come, the Internet will grow more slowly (and probably become a stronger entity for the slow down) and the world will go on.
The problem that you describe is only a problem for companies that see people out their not forking over $20-$40 a month for Internet access and are constantly asking why. The answer is simple. Some of those people just don't care. Some of those people have better things to do with their time than post to slashdot and read online trash mags. And some of them are comletely and totally sick of hearing all the hype about the Internet and are not going to get more interested with people trying to shove it down their throat.
The Internet is a great tool. Just as the computers that were originally all that was used to access it. But that's all it is. It is not the cure for all evils in the world. And until people start getting realistic about its benefits and even its deficiencies (heaven forbid!) we are not going to see it become as ubiquitous as the telephone.
The masses couldn't care less if net access is cheap. They already have cheap telephone service, and cheap television service and cheap access to radio. Adding one more corporate advertising machine into the mix isn't really all that exciting a prospect for some households. And without a real understanding of what the Internet is and how it can be used to gather information, that's all that it is to those people.
I don't see the lack of mass acceptance as a huge deal. It's only natural. Acceptance will come with time. And through time the Internet itself will get better, faster, and hopefully more full of useful information. It just seems silly to say that it is a problem that the entire world population hasn't embraced the Internet. Again I say, SO WHAT!? It's just a tool. Do people get upset when tribes in Africa don't have the latest set of Sears Craftsman tools?....
Just don't make the default color scheme various shades of purple and orange. I would hope to god that we could come up with a color scheme that wasn't quite so hard on the eyes for something so high-tech.
Re:Are there that many PDP-10s still in use?
on
PDP-10 Revival
·
· Score: 1
Ah yes, I was forgetting about that possibility. It seems that the former USSR eats up a lot of what we consider "old" tech tools (not just in the computer industry. I've heard a lot of demand exists for old tractors and old train equipment over there too.).
Who said I was shopping for things I need? If I'm doing a shopping day I won't set foot anywhere near stores that I have to frequent on a normal week-by-week basis (like grocery stores and gas stations).
A trip to the model shop (Gundam Kits rule!), a trip to the video store, maybe look at the toy stores (and the big-boy toy stores like computer shops) and a trip to the music shop/guitar store. That's shopping.
Getting groceries, an ever annoying process, is best left for after work, when you are already pissed off enough at the world that the idea of grocery shopping actually seems pleasant.
I occasionally take day off to keep from getting burn out. It's not that there isn't something else that I should be doing, but for the sake of my sanity I forget it for a day and go do something else.
And for your information, I always had a little wagon type carrier behind my bike. The most I ever carried in it was an aquarium and three 15 pound bags of gravel. It got a little rough going up hills, but other than that it wasn't too bad. But I was in a lot better shape then than I am now.
I lived for a while in a town that was at least 15 miles from the nearest store the sold anything other than beer and chips and managed to get by riding my bike nearly everywhere. I have a hard time believing that even in the "suburbs" there aren't some stores worth visiting in walking or riding distance.
Say I conserve gas by driving half as much as before, that means roughly half the gas consumption, leading to lost revenue for the gas companies. It also means I am outside my home less, which leads to lsot revenues for any places I might impulse shop [computer stores, video stores, fast food, other restaraunts, clothing stores, book stores, etc, etc.].
As my father used to say, "Why, are your fucking legs broken?"
People got around and spent money just fine before cars. Unless you live in a city where you have to travel a hundred miles to do anything (or deep in the country) you can probably find ways to get to the store without a car. Maybe even, ride a bike? I do that a lot in the summer. And twenty to thirty miles isn't that far on a bike (for a day of shopping and riding).
It is a very obvious technique, but the thing that pisses me off about these types of "lawsuites" (as law is a loose term to begin with the term lawsuites covers everything now from real law to Fluffy the poodle got a bad haircut and it depressed her type of cases) is that nobody sues until aboslutely everybody is using the technology.
Don't they have to have a history of trying to protect their patent in order to have the right to "go after" offenders now? There is no way in hell that these morons could have had their heads buried in the sand so far that they just now realized that other people are using this technique. I think the patenting technique is highly questionable. And the idea that a patent can stay good for so long when it comes to Internet ideas is just ludicrous.
Now, if the patent was for something truly novel and wonderful and amazing (in other words, non-obvious) instead of something that any group of morons with two computers and a database would dream up on a bad day, then I could see it. But a patent on something so bloody obvious that hasn't been enforced until it is completely common is just stupid.
I may have been annoyed if they went after the first few other search engines to use this technique, but I am truly angered that they wait for it to become common place before trying to enforce it. Stupid, stupid, stupid. And the nice thing is that the patent office and the law are on the side of the stupid. Grrrr.
Yeah, it's probably a little different for us. Our band situation allows us to do some merchandise selling when we play shows (however small) and we gather together often enough that the idea of mail-order isn't completely out. We aren't big enough yet to offer mail-order, but it's possible.
I'm not sure what to suggest in a situation like you describe. Being that spread out kind of eliminates the "easy" options that require a sort of office or central location. Hmm.
I agree that the "Information Cartel" is out of control. And I agree that politicians aren't beholden to the people anymore. However, I disagree that we should go on a fucking killing spree just because we feel like it.
The stupidity and insanity displayed by the current government of the US of Corporate America is enough to piss anyone off. But let's be realistic. We don't need the politicians to fear us. We need them to respect us. And having someone kill politicians is just going to give them an excuse to further erode our freedoms. If you give them a reason, they will leap at the opportunity.
I agree with your sentiment, but the time of killing the president just because your pissed off at our lousy government I believe to be at an end. Here's an idea, how about trying to convince the rest of America to get off their ass and vote their concious. Don't listen to the assholes that say we are "ruining" our society if we vote for anyone other than the big duopoly candidates and vote for someone that will make a change.
We the American people are just as responsible as the assholes that are the presidents and congressmen of this nation. Sad as it may be, you shouldn't kill them just because they didn't do what we wanted them to do when we voted them in. We will not earn their respect, or their fear by killing off a few of them either. All we will earn is more breakdown in the basic cloth of freedom. The reasons are simple. They already think we are criminals just because we breath air. If we give them that one little excuse, they will slam down the iron fist they have so long been hiding behind the velvent glove.
However, having said that, I think that a full-scale revolution might do the trick. It will take more than just removing the president or any other "key" members. Until you eliminate the entire process, it's going to remain the same. But let's face it. Most American's are obsessed with laziness, and revolutions are hard work. The American people, the people that should be concerned with the constant erosion of their freedoms (in the interest of protecting them from their own stupidity), are far, far more interested in sitting on their couches, throwing back a few doritos and beers, and watching the latest garbage the information cartel is shoving down their throats through the "magic" box.
Re-educate the masses. Eliminating the stupidity at the top will not eliminate the stupidity throughout the system. That stupidity is rooted in the American people themselves. Hopefully someone can figure out a way to wake people up. If not, I'm afraid our children are going to be left with a shitty world.
Considering this was brought on by the government (President Clinton to be exact, read the article) I doubt too many government officials are going to oppose it. Even if they get loads of mail over it. Unless those loads of mail contain as many dollars as the kick-backs and other money they recieve from the players involved in this move, I really don't think anything will be done to prevent it. Not to mention that the government seems to really be working with the big multi-nationals to make them bigger and more consolidated. The reasons? Well, if you want the conspiracy reason, probably because a few sources of information are much easier to regulate (i.e. controll) than large numbers of smaller sources of information. One large corp (supported and enhanced by the state) would be much easier to watch than the multiple small corps that exist today. Not that government usually watches all that closely. Unless, like MS, the corp in question gets a little too greedy and leaves the government out of one or more of its schemes.
Most corps have caught on. Work with and through the government. Don't work against them. Maybe MS has finally adopted this idea too. With Gates out of the real lead, perhaps we will see them making some more smart moves.
But seriously, this probably isn't that big of a deal. Just an attempt to 'open up' on what they consider industry secrets with others within the industry. Unless they start colluding on prices (price fixing) and features (you offer this, I offer that and they have to purchase both), I don't think the government could intervene even if they wanted to. But I could be wrong on that. My legal interpretations occasionally are questionable.
I find it funny that this (mentioned in the article) was all brought about by President Clinton suggesting that the tech industry create an exclusive "members only" club like this to "promote security". (Of course, this is also the point I stopped reading. Any tech company that takes the advice of a politician....left to your imagination.)
The funny thing is that they are trying to emulate the spirit of open source while still remaining closed. They want to "share" information that could be of great help to them, but they don't want to share that information with the public at large. Something about that just strikes me wrong. Their idea is that they are protecting us (the public) and them from more debilitating attacks, but isn't this entire idea flawed? As the poster I am responding to said, security through obscurity just doesn't seem to work.
Granted, open source isn't perfect. But it seems to do the job pretty well. And apparently the businesses involved in the creation of this new "security" group is aware that an open policy can do some good. But their idea that only they (as in the special multi-national interests/corps) should have this "open" information seems kind of a deterrant to the idea of "open" information.
Opening up your information to a bunch of like-minded individuals in similar situations probably isn't going to solve underlying problems any more quickly. It's the fact that such hugely diverse people can look at the same problem from so many angles that open source projects can solve security problems quickly (when they need to). Letting someone with a fresh and possibly completely new way of looking at something is always good for any project.
But, another way of looking at this is that they are going out of their way to adapt as many open source ideas as they can without truly admitting that open source ideas work. Maybe eventually someone there will get a clue that if opening things up amongst the companies was good, perhaps opening up further would be better. I don't really see this as a conspiracy. But I think it's kind of funny. Like one of the AC's in this thread said, they've set up their own little closed source version of the OSS community. And the AC is right, it is kind of cute, in an odd way.
Get real, ambitious(sp?) projects / big projects NEED funding to afford the bill.
Fine and dandy. Let them find a way to fund the bill that actually works. If you read my other responses you will see some of the ways that my group funds our project, small-scale as it is. It isn't like the web is a single and completely removed from reality entity. Maybe a popular web-site can use merchandising or other meat-space methods to generate revenue. Maybe they go pay-per-view. Or maybe, just maybe, they find a way of using advertising creatively or in a way that customers can't get around?
Personally, even though it may sound like I'm the perfect candidate, I don't filter my web content. I just don't frequent sites that are completely obnoxious about web-advertising. On a slow link (and all I can get is dial-up), four ads on a page really takes some time to download. But I don't mind slashdot's one ad per-page policy. And I even find the banners occasionally funny. Targetted, creative advertising isn't so bad. But the whole idea of "force the consumer to eat whatever shit we want to feed them, and they had better be willing to pay for it" idea seems kind of ludicrous.
But, also as I said elsewhere, this is all probably just me. I know I'm a prick.
Slashdot Mirror
Try a building supply store. A lot of them have sheets of tine used for barn and garage roofs.
But the thing I've found is fishing weights, when melted down and "smoothed" into a sheet allow you to form a much heavier "sheet" that will fit perfectly into whatever envelope you need it to as you can form it yourself and you don't need to worry about cutting yourself.
What's that you say? No, I don't have too much time on my hands. I just enjoy a good case of vengeance.
Or, alternatively, you could just include a bit of Limburger cheese.
Make sure it has plenty of time to um, ferment first. It's bad enough fresh, I'd hate to smell it when it was rotted a bit.
Three words, "lead fishing sinkers". They are small, heavy, and fit inside the envelope so that no one will just throw it away at the post office.
I've heard that the brick idea doesn't get through a lot of the time and you are just wasting your effort. However, the lead sinkers will at least get to the company, and then they are actually billed for the shipping wieght.
Well, at one time when I looked into Evolution they had said they were developing a server for it too. But now all they say is that it supports LDAP. Blah! Who cares? I want to see a bells and whistles server that will make my idiot manager drool and wet his pants with excitement. God knows that the only way to impress those people is to just completely flabbergast them with flash. So, where's the flash. A client like this without a fully complete server architecture behind it is going to be useless in a busines situation.
OK, wasn't aware of that one.
I do know that the Evolution client is also being developed in conjunction with a server, but I am really curious as to why they rarely, if ever, mention the servers. Sure, they aren't the flashy/showy/wonderous things that everyone sees on the desktop, but to the people running the systems the server side is every bit as important (and in my mind would be a far more exciting) development. But, hopefully when they are "released" they will be nice and solid. When I get some time I throw one of them on my test network and check them out.
And if we have something with those bells and whistles available on Linux, that's great, but it does nothing without the Exchange server type functions. But, others have pointed out that it is in the works. I wonder why no one ever mentions that in these "press release" style posts.
The server side may not be flashy and sexy, but it is very important if we are going to show a "feature by feature" compatible or even comparable Outlook Killer.
I don't see people not having net access as a problem. You do. That's what I flamed you over.
The companies trying to make money off of it probably see it as a problem, but I don't think that a company's concerns should be the primary motivator of the human race. If there were a pressing need for the Internet, or if someone invented something that made the Internet much, much more important than it is (like I said, it's just a tool, a research tool, and people have far more reliable libraries for that).
As to whether the rebated PCs thing would work, here in the states it's been going on for more than a year and it hasn't worked yet. Some people just don't see the need for net access. Say what you will, until people start to see it as a need, the idea of wanting it won't really matter.
I would love to see an open-source Exchange killer. Hopefully someone will wake up long enough to drool out the phrase, Business like Outlook 'cause Exchange serve functions and actually do something about it.
And for those out there preparing a "DO IT YOURSELF DUMBASS" response, some of us already have plenty to do without having to code every piece of software we use from the ground up. Thank you very much.
Better yet would be having an Exchange server replacement on Linux. Something that can do all that garbage on the back-end that can hook up to these front-ends.
Look, we all want to see an Outlook killer on Linux. But let's face it. The reason people bitch about not having Outlook on Linux in the corporate world is mostly because of the calendaring/scheduling and collaboration type things they can do with Exchange server in the background. So, while I like the idea of having the Outlook Killer clients, when is someone going to really, really focus on the back end?
I want to see an Exchange killer in the back hooked up to one of these Outlook killer clients. Plus, I'd like to see it a little more sane/easier to administer. I'm not asking for more clickable items, I'm asking for sane permission structures (so I can keep Dave from resetting Betty's calendar without her permission), realistically tied together scheduling and a nicely followable format for the whole configuration.
I realize there are some albeit very, very small efforts under way to complete some projects along these lines. But there seems to be so much focus on the front end that no one really says squat about the server side requirements/code.
Until I hear that one of these packages is fully ready to tackle the Exchange/Outlook combo punch, I'll just keep plugging away with what I've got. Seperate server based calendaring, seperate e-mail, seperate collaboration, all a pain in the ass to accomplish, but usable. And constantly listening to my users bitch and moan because at that other company, "We used Outlook."
We get by with what we've got (and the boss liked the price tag, probably the only reason we are using Linux), but it sure would be nice to give the users something focused on their needs.
Forget about world hunger, mid-eastern holy wars and homeless people, we need mass acceptence of the NET!
/rudeness off
Seriously, there are a huge number of people that just aren't interested in the Internet. Now, I'm not one of those people that thinks we should eliminate the desire to gain Internet access if it exists, but I don't really think that people are denying themselves the greatest thing humanity has ever created if they aren't on the Internet as often as possible. Some people just don't care one way or another. And if they aren't actively seeking Internet access, then I promise you that they are not going to be impressed when someone comes out with a "cheap" way to get online. Trust me, if they won't purchase the pay 500 get 400 back when you sign up for MSN computers at Office Max and Best Buy (and everywhere else) then they probably aren't going to plunk down the $400 that it would cost for this toy.
Now, I do expect Internet access to continually become more common place as time goes on. But I don't think there is any pressing need to get every person in the world attached to the Internet in some fashion. And apparently there are a large number of people that agree. Older people shrug over it, and many younger people that aren't into computers couldn't care less.
As to the panic that occassionally strikes when it is seen that Internet growth is slowing, it's not worth the panic it causes. The Internet isn't going to disappear because of a period of slow growth. Slow growth is still growth. Our economy is in a correctionary period right now. With the past few years of an ever increasing vitality, there was the necissity to either slow things a bit or brace for the inevitable crash. The growth of Internet access is in the same type of period right now. It isn't going to die if the people that are left without Internet access just shrug it off. Like it or not, it's here to stay. It's become too much of a money maker to just disappear. Some of the methods of making money over the Internet need to change, evolve and adapt because there aren't as many clueless people jumping on every day willing to fork over large sums of cash easily, but so what? The changes will come, the Internet will grow more slowly (and probably become a stronger entity for the slow down) and the world will go on.
The problem that you describe is only a problem for companies that see people out their not forking over $20-$40 a month for Internet access and are constantly asking why. The answer is simple. Some of those people just don't care. Some of those people have better things to do with their time than post to slashdot and read online trash mags. And some of them are comletely and totally sick of hearing all the hype about the Internet and are not going to get more interested with people trying to shove it down their throat.
The Internet is a great tool. Just as the computers that were originally all that was used to access it. But that's all it is. It is not the cure for all evils in the world. And until people start getting realistic about its benefits and even its deficiencies (heaven forbid!) we are not going to see it become as ubiquitous as the telephone.
The masses couldn't care less if net access is cheap. They already have cheap telephone service, and cheap television service and cheap access to radio. Adding one more corporate advertising machine into the mix isn't really all that exciting a prospect for some households. And without a real understanding of what the Internet is and how it can be used to gather information, that's all that it is to those people.
I don't see the lack of mass acceptance as a huge deal. It's only natural. Acceptance will come with time. And through time the Internet itself will get better, faster, and hopefully more full of useful information. It just seems silly to say that it is a problem that the entire world population hasn't embraced the Internet. Again I say, SO WHAT!? It's just a tool. Do people get upset when tribes in Africa don't have the latest set of Sears Craftsman tools?....
Just don't make the default color scheme various shades of purple and orange. I would hope to god that we could come up with a color scheme that wasn't quite so hard on the eyes for something so high-tech.
Ah yes, I was forgetting about that possibility. It seems that the former USSR eats up a lot of what we consider "old" tech tools (not just in the computer industry. I've heard a lot of demand exists for old tractors and old train equipment over there too.).
Who said I was shopping for things I need? If I'm doing a shopping day I won't set foot anywhere near stores that I have to frequent on a normal week-by-week basis (like grocery stores and gas stations).
A trip to the model shop (Gundam Kits rule!), a trip to the video store, maybe look at the toy stores (and the big-boy toy stores like computer shops) and a trip to the music shop/guitar store. That's shopping.
Getting groceries, an ever annoying process, is best left for after work, when you are already pissed off enough at the world that the idea of grocery shopping actually seems pleasant.
Let me know when the port of GCC to my Apple IIGS is complete. Then I'll be happy!;-)
Now, on a serious note, is there any need for this? Are there that many PDP-10s still in use?
I occasionally take day off to keep from getting burn out. It's not that there isn't something else that I should be doing, but for the sake of my sanity I forget it for a day and go do something else.
And for your information, I always had a little wagon type carrier behind my bike. The most I ever carried in it was an aquarium and three 15 pound bags of gravel. It got a little rough going up hills, but other than that it wasn't too bad. But I was in a lot better shape then than I am now.
I lived for a while in a town that was at least 15 miles from the nearest store the sold anything other than beer and chips and managed to get by riding my bike nearly everywhere. I have a hard time believing that even in the "suburbs" there aren't some stores worth visiting in walking or riding distance.
True enough. Maybe I should have said, greedy, greedy, greedy.
As my father used to say, "Why, are your fucking legs broken?"
People got around and spent money just fine before cars. Unless you live in a city where you have to travel a hundred miles to do anything (or deep in the country) you can probably find ways to get to the store without a car. Maybe even, ride a bike? I do that a lot in the summer. And twenty to thirty miles isn't that far on a bike (for a day of shopping and riding).
It is a very obvious technique, but the thing that pisses me off about these types of "lawsuites" (as law is a loose term to begin with the term lawsuites covers everything now from real law to Fluffy the poodle got a bad haircut and it depressed her type of cases) is that nobody sues until aboslutely everybody is using the technology.
Don't they have to have a history of trying to protect their patent in order to have the right to "go after" offenders now? There is no way in hell that these morons could have had their heads buried in the sand so far that they just now realized that other people are using this technique. I think the patenting technique is highly questionable. And the idea that a patent can stay good for so long when it comes to Internet ideas is just ludicrous.
Now, if the patent was for something truly novel and wonderful and amazing (in other words, non-obvious) instead of something that any group of morons with two computers and a database would dream up on a bad day, then I could see it. But a patent on something so bloody obvious that hasn't been enforced until it is completely common is just stupid.
I may have been annoyed if they went after the first few other search engines to use this technique, but I am truly angered that they wait for it to become common place before trying to enforce it. Stupid, stupid, stupid. And the nice thing is that the patent office and the law are on the side of the stupid. Grrrr.
Yeah, it's probably a little different for us. Our band situation allows us to do some merchandise selling when we play shows (however small) and we gather together often enough that the idea of mail-order isn't completely out. We aren't big enough yet to offer mail-order, but it's possible.
I'm not sure what to suggest in a situation like you describe. Being that spread out kind of eliminates the "easy" options that require a sort of office or central location. Hmm.
I agree that the "Information Cartel" is out of control. And I agree that politicians aren't beholden to the people anymore. However, I disagree that we should go on a fucking killing spree just because we feel like it.
The stupidity and insanity displayed by the current government of the US of Corporate America is enough to piss anyone off. But let's be realistic. We don't need the politicians to fear us. We need them to respect us. And having someone kill politicians is just going to give them an excuse to further erode our freedoms. If you give them a reason, they will leap at the opportunity.
I agree with your sentiment, but the time of killing the president just because your pissed off at our lousy government I believe to be at an end. Here's an idea, how about trying to convince the rest of America to get off their ass and vote their concious. Don't listen to the assholes that say we are "ruining" our society if we vote for anyone other than the big duopoly candidates and vote for someone that will make a change.
We the American people are just as responsible as the assholes that are the presidents and congressmen of this nation. Sad as it may be, you shouldn't kill them just because they didn't do what we wanted them to do when we voted them in. We will not earn their respect, or their fear by killing off a few of them either. All we will earn is more breakdown in the basic cloth of freedom. The reasons are simple. They already think we are criminals just because we breath air. If we give them that one little excuse, they will slam down the iron fist they have so long been hiding behind the velvent glove.
However, having said that, I think that a full-scale revolution might do the trick. It will take more than just removing the president or any other "key" members. Until you eliminate the entire process, it's going to remain the same. But let's face it. Most American's are obsessed with laziness, and revolutions are hard work. The American people, the people that should be concerned with the constant erosion of their freedoms (in the interest of protecting them from their own stupidity), are far, far more interested in sitting on their couches, throwing back a few doritos and beers, and watching the latest garbage the information cartel is shoving down their throats through the "magic" box.
Re-educate the masses. Eliminating the stupidity at the top will not eliminate the stupidity throughout the system. That stupidity is rooted in the American people themselves. Hopefully someone can figure out a way to wake people up. If not, I'm afraid our children are going to be left with a shitty world.
Considering this was brought on by the government (President Clinton to be exact, read the article) I doubt too many government officials are going to oppose it. Even if they get loads of mail over it. Unless those loads of mail contain as many dollars as the kick-backs and other money they recieve from the players involved in this move, I really don't think anything will be done to prevent it. Not to mention that the government seems to really be working with the big multi-nationals to make them bigger and more consolidated. The reasons? Well, if you want the conspiracy reason, probably because a few sources of information are much easier to regulate (i.e. controll) than large numbers of smaller sources of information. One large corp (supported and enhanced by the state) would be much easier to watch than the multiple small corps that exist today. Not that government usually watches all that closely. Unless, like MS, the corp in question gets a little too greedy and leaves the government out of one or more of its schemes.
Most corps have caught on. Work with and through the government. Don't work against them. Maybe MS has finally adopted this idea too. With Gates out of the real lead, perhaps we will see them making some more smart moves.
But seriously, this probably isn't that big of a deal. Just an attempt to 'open up' on what they consider industry secrets with others within the industry. Unless they start colluding on prices (price fixing) and features (you offer this, I offer that and they have to purchase both), I don't think the government could intervene even if they wanted to. But I could be wrong on that. My legal interpretations occasionally are questionable.
I find it funny that this (mentioned in the article) was all brought about by President Clinton suggesting that the tech industry create an exclusive "members only" club like this to "promote security". (Of course, this is also the point I stopped reading. Any tech company that takes the advice of a politician....left to your imagination.)
The funny thing is that they are trying to emulate the spirit of open source while still remaining closed. They want to "share" information that could be of great help to them, but they don't want to share that information with the public at large. Something about that just strikes me wrong. Their idea is that they are protecting us (the public) and them from more debilitating attacks, but isn't this entire idea flawed? As the poster I am responding to said, security through obscurity just doesn't seem to work.
Granted, open source isn't perfect. But it seems to do the job pretty well. And apparently the businesses involved in the creation of this new "security" group is aware that an open policy can do some good. But their idea that only they (as in the special multi-national interests/corps) should have this "open" information seems kind of a deterrant to the idea of "open" information.
Opening up your information to a bunch of like-minded individuals in similar situations probably isn't going to solve underlying problems any more quickly. It's the fact that such hugely diverse people can look at the same problem from so many angles that open source projects can solve security problems quickly (when they need to). Letting someone with a fresh and possibly completely new way of looking at something is always good for any project.
But, another way of looking at this is that they are going out of their way to adapt as many open source ideas as they can without truly admitting that open source ideas work. Maybe eventually someone there will get a clue that if opening things up amongst the companies was good, perhaps opening up further would be better. I don't really see this as a conspiracy. But I think it's kind of funny. Like one of the AC's in this thread said, they've set up their own little closed source version of the OSS community. And the AC is right, it is kind of cute, in an odd way.
Fine and dandy. Let them find a way to fund the bill that actually works. If you read my other responses you will see some of the ways that my group funds our project, small-scale as it is. It isn't like the web is a single and completely removed from reality entity. Maybe a popular web-site can use merchandising or other meat-space methods to generate revenue. Maybe they go pay-per-view. Or maybe, just maybe, they find a way of using advertising creatively or in a way that customers can't get around?
Personally, even though it may sound like I'm the perfect candidate, I don't filter my web content. I just don't frequent sites that are completely obnoxious about web-advertising. On a slow link (and all I can get is dial-up), four ads on a page really takes some time to download. But I don't mind slashdot's one ad per-page policy. And I even find the banners occasionally funny. Targetted, creative advertising isn't so bad. But the whole idea of "force the consumer to eat whatever shit we want to feed them, and they had better be willing to pay for it" idea seems kind of ludicrous.
But, also as I said elsewhere, this is all probably just me. I know I'm a prick.