If you build it underground in NYC, the MTA will prevent anyone from taking photographs of it. http://www.ny1.com/ny/TopStories/SubTopic/ind ex.ht ml?topicintid=1&subtopicintid=1&contentintid=40174
It isn't merely a case of Microsoft being a favorite whipping boy. A few years ago when Microsoft announced its move to the new software assurance scheme and people complained loudly that a program where they paid Microsoft a set annual fee for a two year timeframe and MS contracted to maybe release new software and maybe not - those complainers were treating MS as their favorite whipping boy. We are merely saying WE TOLD YOU SO.
This isn't about slipped delivery schedules, or product quality - its about money.
The old scheme where people paid for upgrade licenses was abandoned because MS wanted, I believe the phrase was "a more predictable revenue stream" - in other words a MS tax on businesses regardless of the delivery. In short a scam, because that is what it is - I am not bashing MS when i relate that - I am telling the truth.
What a waste of time
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Literally. A few clock cycles wasted - would this really slow spam down? Doubtful.
I liked the opening
If the U.S. Postal Service delivered mail for free, our mailboxes would surely runneth over with more credit-card offers, sweepstakes entries, and supermarket fliers.
How does this differ from reality? Postage doen't prevent direct mail - I get more physical Junkmail than e-Junk.
But the reason for my post: Rather than Ideas to charge everyone to stop the abuser, why not create a system where users set a fee for reading mail in their inbox - anyone who wants to pay the set rate.10 per e-mail, 1.00 per e-mail... - whatever the user defined- got their mail delivered and the user got paid to read it. People who didn't want to be bothered set a high rate and got a clean inbox, people who had a lot of free time make a buck a day reading 50 - 100 spam offers for enlargements of all types. People who don't legitimately have a business won't put up money and they don't get delivery.
Too complicated? Not any more complex than the other systems proposed.
While I agree with the general trend of the discussion that nothing is proven, yet, wouldn't these actions on the part of Microsoft - if they were true - be a violation of ANTITRUST LAWS? Remember, MS is a legally defined monopoly, now, its behavior is not judged by the same low standard as a mere auto company or other competitive firm, but by a different set of low standards. This would be a very serious charge against MS.
For an overview of how the brand coca-cola has degraded actual Indian village drinking water check out http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid= 7528
Branding is not "bad" or "good", if the information is relevant then the brand identification is useful. but as someone elsewhere in the discussion has noted I will admit that it's deceitful and stupid when a brand tries to attach itself to a lifestyle.
which is what bottled waters do. Dasani was at one time, and may still be just a repackaging of Atlanta city water, filtered, etc.
I have no extra information, but I'm as skeptical as you are. You could say that downloading is akin to receiving stolen property, but that is an inexact metaphor, because the real, tangible property is not transfered. It is a type of industrial espionage to acquire the material, akin to old Mission Impossible style break-ins with minox cameras, or whatever. But to download and view information on the internet is hardly being party to that crime. So the theft is illegal, but wouldn't the downloader be in the position of, say, the Reagan campaign which used the Carter briefing book (stolen) to prepare for the debates? I don't remember a huge effort to round up and imprison Reagan officials. Of course, maybe there is a better analogy from someone lawyerly?
This might be true of the country as a whole, but what about the New York City Metro area. The density here is incredible, they have overcapacity on the networks, they have an ideal situation - but they want way too much money for a monthly connection, they haven't figured out how to sell it, and they haven't hit on the ideal internet app - you hardly need broadband for slashdot.
The entire Northeast seaboard is also of sufficient density
If it didn't matter what anyone thought then SCO would not have made the ploy they did. If SCO had thought that IBM was ACTUALLY guilty they would have had a reasonable deal in no time flat. The behavior of Darl, et al is the exact same thing as the behavior of the Bush administration vis a vis Iraq - they were going for broke and truth was the inevitable casualty. SCO has no business left except what it can squeeze from its tenuous control of UNIX, so they have to find a way to stop the move to Linux. You are absolutely correct in stating that we need to ignore them, the OSS idea isn't linked to any one project anyway, and to dwell on this is to play into SCO's real strategy. FUD
But I am the administrator for a graphics house, and the policy here has been to set up e-mail clients in Netscape 2.5 , 3.0 , 4.0, 4.5 etc, and now Mozilla (up to 1.4) The rule is that users are free to configure IE if they want, but they are on their own. Here's why:
Until 3.0 Netscape creamed IE. After that, the system administrator ( me) arbitrarily decided that Microsoft was behaving badly and that Netscape was still better as an email client. It was also available for all platforms we supported at the time ( SGI Irix, Mac OS and Windows flavors). Microsoft IE was not available on any Unix platforms. Hence useless.
Why did I feel Netscape (and then Mozilla) was better than IE as a mail client? It had better performance with a Unix IMAP server. IE wanted badly to work with Exchange, so badly it was a royal pain to set it up with IMAP, kept losing lock on the mailbox. Microsoft has had, and still has a tendency to supplant agreed standards with Microsoft proprietary methods ( which they call de facto standards, and which are non-standards), It was a great disappointment to me that Netscape tried the same BS for a while, but once Mozilla became open, standards compliance came around ( though MS seems to be better too)
The sell was easy because my boss loves Macs - he likes IE but wasn't going to force the issue.
So the summary is : we picked Mozilla over IE because we started on Netscape, We run unix for mail systems, we're fans of open source, our boss likes Macs and hates PCs, Netscape/Mozilla offered the promise of better standards compliance, support for more Operating Systems, and we're lazy!
Unfortunately, as someone above pointed out, even an implicitly permitted action, like opening a pop-up window could be argued as an unauthorised "intrusion". Of course it would be unlikely to be outlawed by a court because too many commercial interests would be jeopardized. The old days, where what was not explicitly denied was permitted, are over, and the main problem is that poorly written laws ( laws that apply the notion of trespass to virtual space) and a generally poor conception of ownership are meeting in a social climate that is increasingly draconian in outlook. The US has always been a place where people sue each other, which is actually a good and healthy thing - but we are becoming a place that imprisons people, in increasing numbers and for increasing lengths of time. When the issue is no longer one of suing you for damages, but having the government round you up and treat you like a criminal ( a la Mitnick or Skylarov) then we have criminalized excessively. Where we draw the criminal line is the key question,, and we blew past that line a long time ago, and are increasingly criminalizing behavior that is annoying, or even beneficial.
As someone who currently runs 1 app on DOS and two apps on Windows 3.11 and has to support NT 4.0 and Mac OS 9 there are a few issues, in addition to the very accurate ones that you state.
I manage a facility that does high-end graphics printing, and if I have a printer that is 12 years old and still makes brilliant prints, but it hasn't been marketed in 10 years then no one will write modern software to support it. So I'm "stuck" with DOS. The issue that worries me, then, is massive hadware failure on the PC, cause I have to find a pre-PCI bus computer. The second issue is data format closure ( read proprietary data formats and character settings) until we have ISO character support and XML or open data storage standards we can't have real data portability, and without data portability you are trapped in a legacy codebase. It is probably a well written peice of software ( or you wouldn't have built so much of your company around it) but it is still a trap. PROPRIETARY data formats are always a trap.
I am under the impression that the US is signatory to a treaty that bans the militarization of space. Whilst the US has heretofore broken every treaty it has signed, it does amaze me that we would trivialise the breaking of solumn obligations by such an obvious ruse.
I do take issue with your comment that Windows "massively improved" the Mac Interface. I work with four systems - MAC, Windows NT, Linux (GNOME), and SGI-IRIX. Of all of the Systems GNOME has the least intuitive and elegant approach, which I don't mind- it is a WORK IN PROGRESS. By far the most elegant, intuitive interface is the MAC interface. YES there are sacrifices- there are things you cannot do easily on the MAC- but these are mostly system administration tasks, not common user tasks. If your GRANDMOTHER wants a computer buy her an iMAC. It isn't appropriate for everyone, but is much easier for the novice than Windows. The original question wasn't about OS, but about GUI. The SGI user interface and tools beat Windows in visual appeal, and the System Administration tools beat Linux ( the GUI tools, all the command line stuff is equivalent).
If Apple were to port its new face on Linux for Intel as well as the Darwin kernel it would probably let MAC OSX give Windows a ride for its money.
It is also true that in CAD/CAM applications for Textile Industries the leading Companies are Lectra Systemes and NedGraphics ( who market a software called Visioni tha was developed by the French. These two Companies are No.1 and No.2 in this Market Segment.
In addition to what Tony-A has to say, in large enterprises with ERP and Database Transaction servers there are two primary considerations- transaction speed and scalability. The proprietary Unix systems are usually built on propietary hardware ( Solaris being the major exception). These systems scale to a large number of processors ( 128 processors for HP-Unix, Solaris, and SGI). They often have higher bandwidth capabilities ( Gigabytes/sec throughput). They have tremendous reliability and combine that with huge numbers of transactions per second. They are still not as reliable, nor as fast, as the mainframes- though they are improving quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
If you build it underground in NYC, the MTA will prevent anyone from taking photographs of it.d ex.ht ml?topicintid=1&subtopicintid=1&contentintid=40174
http://www.ny1.com/ny/TopStories/SubTopic/in
Nobody thinks about Soviet Russia
It isn't merely a case of Microsoft being a favorite whipping boy. A few years ago when Microsoft announced its move to the new software assurance scheme and people complained loudly that a program where they paid Microsoft a set annual fee for a two year timeframe and MS contracted to maybe release new software and maybe not - those complainers were treating MS as their favorite whipping boy. We are merely saying WE TOLD YOU SO.
This isn't about slipped delivery schedules, or product quality - its about money.
The old scheme where people paid for upgrade licenses was abandoned because MS wanted, I believe the phrase was "a more predictable revenue stream" - in other words a MS tax on businesses regardless of the delivery. In short a scam, because that is what it is - I am not bashing MS when i relate that - I am telling the truth.
Literally. A few clock cycles wasted - would this really slow spam down? Doubtful.
.10 per e-mail, 1.00 per e-mail... - whatever the user defined- got their mail delivered and the user got paid to read it. People who didn't want to be bothered set a high rate and got a clean inbox, people who had a lot of free time make a buck a day reading 50 - 100 spam offers for enlargements of all types. People who don't legitimately have a business won't put up money and they don't get delivery.
I liked the opening
If the U.S. Postal Service delivered mail for free, our mailboxes would surely runneth over with more credit-card offers, sweepstakes entries, and supermarket fliers.
How does this differ from reality? Postage doen't prevent direct mail - I get more physical Junkmail than e-Junk.
But the reason for my post: Rather than Ideas to charge everyone to stop the abuser, why not create a system where users set a fee for reading mail in their inbox - anyone who wants to pay the set rate
Too complicated? Not any more complex than the other systems proposed.
While I agree with the general trend of the discussion that nothing is proven, yet, wouldn't these actions on the part of Microsoft - if they were true - be a violation of ANTITRUST LAWS? Remember, MS is a legally defined monopoly, now, its behavior is not judged by the same low standard as a mere auto company or other competitive firm, but by a different set of low standards. This would be a very serious charge against MS.
For an overview of how the brand coca-cola has degraded actual Indian village drinking water check out http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid= 7528
Branding is not "bad" or "good", if the information is relevant then the brand identification is useful. but as someone elsewhere in the discussion has noted I will admit that it's deceitful and stupid when a brand tries to attach itself to a lifestyle.
which is what bottled waters do. Dasani was at one time, and may still be just a repackaging of Atlanta city water, filtered, etc.
I have no extra information, but I'm as skeptical as you are. You could say that downloading is akin to receiving stolen property, but that is an inexact metaphor, because the real, tangible property is not transfered. It is a type of industrial espionage to acquire the material, akin to old Mission Impossible style break-ins with minox cameras, or whatever. But to download and view information on the internet is hardly being party to that crime. So the theft is illegal, but wouldn't the downloader be in the position of, say, the Reagan campaign which used the Carter briefing book (stolen) to prepare for the debates? I don't remember a huge effort to round up and imprison Reagan officials. Of course, maybe there is a better analogy from someone lawyerly?
Does this mean we can finally get Win NT 4.0 as stable as *nix?
And the Truth shall set you free, eh?
This might be true of the country as a whole, but what about the New York City Metro area. The density here is incredible, they have overcapacity on the networks, they have an ideal situation - but they want way too much money for a monthly connection, they haven't figured out how to sell it, and they haven't hit on the ideal internet app - you hardly need broadband for slashdot.
The entire Northeast seaboard is also of sufficient density
I'm old enough to remember quadrophonic sound.
If it didn't matter what anyone thought then SCO would not have made the ploy they did. If SCO had thought that IBM was ACTUALLY guilty they would have had a reasonable deal in no time flat. The behavior of Darl, et al is the exact same thing as the behavior of the Bush administration vis a vis Iraq - they were going for broke and truth was the inevitable casualty. SCO has no business left except what it can squeeze from its tenuous control of UNIX, so they have to find a way to stop the move to Linux. You are absolutely correct in stating that we need to ignore them, the OSS idea isn't linked to any one project anyway, and to dwell on this is to play into SCO's real strategy. FUD
But I am the administrator for a graphics house, and the policy here has been to set up e-mail clients in Netscape 2.5 , 3.0 , 4.0, 4.5 etc, and now Mozilla (up to 1.4) The rule is that users are free to configure IE if they want, but they are on their own.
Here's why:
Until 3.0 Netscape creamed IE. After that, the system administrator ( me) arbitrarily decided that Microsoft was behaving badly and that Netscape was still better as an email client. It was also available for all platforms we supported at the time ( SGI Irix, Mac OS and Windows flavors). Microsoft IE was not available on any Unix platforms. Hence useless.
Why did I feel Netscape (and then Mozilla) was better than IE as a mail client? It had better performance with a Unix IMAP server. IE wanted badly to work with Exchange, so badly it was a royal pain to set it up with IMAP, kept losing lock on the mailbox. Microsoft has had, and still has a tendency to supplant agreed standards with Microsoft proprietary methods ( which they call de facto standards, and which are non-standards), It was a great disappointment to me that Netscape tried the same BS for a while, but once Mozilla became open, standards compliance came around ( though MS seems to be better too)
The sell was easy because my boss loves Macs - he likes IE but wasn't going to force the issue.
So the summary is : we picked Mozilla over IE because we started on Netscape, We run unix for mail systems, we're fans of open source, our boss likes Macs and hates PCs, Netscape/Mozilla offered the promise of better standards compliance, support for more Operating Systems, and we're lazy!
Unfortunately, as someone above pointed out, even an implicitly permitted action, like opening a pop-up window could be argued as an unauthorised "intrusion". Of course it would be unlikely to be outlawed by a court because too many commercial interests would be jeopardized. The old days, where what was not explicitly denied was permitted, are over, and the main problem is that poorly written laws ( laws that apply the notion of trespass to virtual space) and a generally poor conception of ownership are meeting in a social climate that is increasingly draconian in outlook. The US has always been a place where people sue each other, which is actually a good and healthy thing - but we are becoming a place that imprisons people, in increasing numbers and for increasing lengths of time. When the issue is no longer one of suing you for damages, but having the government round you up and treat you like a criminal ( a la Mitnick or Skylarov) then we have criminalized excessively. Where we draw the criminal line is the key question,, and we blew past that line a long time ago, and are increasingly criminalizing behavior that is annoying, or even beneficial.
As someone who currently runs 1 app on DOS and two apps on Windows 3.11 and has to support NT 4.0 and Mac OS 9 there are a few issues, in addition to the very accurate ones that you state.
I manage a facility that does high-end graphics printing, and if I have a printer that is 12 years old and still makes brilliant prints, but it hasn't been marketed in 10 years then no one will write modern software to support it. So I'm "stuck" with DOS. The issue that worries me, then, is massive hadware failure on the PC, cause I have to find a pre-PCI bus computer. The second issue is data format closure ( read proprietary data formats and character settings) until we have ISO character support and XML or open data storage standards we can't have real data portability, and without data portability you are trapped in a legacy codebase. It is probably a well written peice of software ( or you wouldn't have built so much of your company around it) but it is still a trap. PROPRIETARY data formats are always a trap.
I am under the impression that the US is signatory to a treaty that bans the militarization of space. Whilst the US has heretofore broken every treaty it has signed, it does amaze me that we would trivialise the breaking of solumn obligations by such an obvious ruse.
This idea is very worthy of development.
I do take issue with your comment that Windows "massively improved" the Mac Interface. I work with four systems - MAC, Windows NT, Linux (GNOME), and SGI-IRIX. Of all of the Systems GNOME has the least intuitive and elegant approach, which I don't mind- it is a WORK IN PROGRESS. By far the most elegant, intuitive interface is the MAC interface. YES there are sacrifices- there are things you cannot do easily on the MAC- but these are mostly system administration tasks, not common user tasks. If your GRANDMOTHER wants a computer buy her an iMAC. It isn't appropriate for everyone, but is much easier for the novice than Windows. The original question wasn't about OS, but about GUI. The SGI user interface and tools beat Windows in visual appeal, and the System Administration tools beat Linux ( the GUI tools, all the command line stuff is equivalent).
If Apple were to port its new face on Linux for Intel as well as the Darwin kernel it would probably let MAC OSX give Windows a ride for its money.
It is also true that in CAD/CAM applications for Textile Industries the leading Companies are Lectra Systemes and NedGraphics ( who market a software called Visioni tha was developed by the French. These two Companies are No.1 and No.2 in this Market Segment.
In addition to what Tony-A has to say, in large enterprises with ERP and Database Transaction servers there are two primary considerations- transaction speed and scalability. The proprietary Unix systems are usually built on propietary hardware ( Solaris being the major exception). These systems scale to a large number of processors ( 128 processors for HP-Unix, Solaris, and SGI). They often have higher bandwidth capabilities ( Gigabytes/sec throughput). They have tremendous reliability and combine that with huge numbers of transactions per second. They are still not as reliable, nor as fast, as the mainframes- though they are improving quickly.