Having purchased every version of Windows ever released, and having purchased them directly from MS (up until 3.1), I can tell you with complete authority that the claim for multitasking came straight from them.
I know this simply due to to a simple reality. The reason we bought every version was because we wanted that multitasking, and our purchase inquiries by definition would demand that feature.
Our existing setup was using a product called CDos (Concurrent Dos), by DR. It worked well - it was fully scheduled with threading, etc... but it was overkill, and a little too cumbersome for the job. Windows looked dumb enough to do the job, but it wasn't just "dos-friendly"... it WAS dos. Life would be much easier if just a primitive time-slicer could be had. And Windows x.x has supposedly been exactly that product.
No way in hell would we have purchased Windows unless MS said it would work. And I grilled 'em, every version - "You say it'll task... NOT a specially written app as a TSR, but several 'normal' exe's launched, and it'll time slice them. Yes?" "Absolutely!"
So, since you know MS made no unfounded claims about 'multitasking', I'd have to suggest you check your definition of 'unfounded' and 'claim'. Then again, they weren't unfounded claims. They were statements of fact, at the time.
I have no problem with your reasoning -- in principle. In reality, though, there's something to be said for using an off-the-shelf current Dell instead of that old 286, for the sole reason that if and when an underutilized Dell dies, you can swap it out with an identical system within a few minutes. On the other hand, finding a replacement 286 with enough working parts to do the job may prove difficult in case of emergency.
Err, ya kinda missed something. Or more likely, I should have made it clearer...
I didn't just throw this 286 on there yesterday. I threw it on there when a 286-12 was the 2nd top dog on the market. If it dies, sure... replace it with the cheapest (new) POS out there. But unless it dies... upgrade? To what end?
A few years ago, there was this huge.com era. And most of us laughed at it, because it was stupid, pointless, and irrelevent. The bulk of the things developed was, to be blunt, total hogwash. Period.
The hogwash wasn't just limited to.coms, however. I remember almost spitting my coffee when I hit a headline, "New 3 Dimensional Database" in some trade rag. And yes, it was just a new buzzword for crap we've been doing in FoxBase, Foxpro, DBase, C, APPLE BASIC, and even COBOL for years. Yep, real new. Had a big price tag on it, too. And people bought it.
Then, "Client Server" was also a big buzzword. Yep, real new. Uh...
Of course, "client server" got worn out, and people hated it. So, they invented a new word - "Thin Client". THAT was NEW! In fact, if you got one REVOLUTIONARY enough, it'd even have VT100 emulation! Or Wyse50! Oh, hell, that's not new at all....and so on. Morons selling the same old trash, with a newer and bigger buzzword. Idiots buying it, because they're too lazy to learn, over their head, or just plain useless.
Then the website craze began. Morons charging $500/hr to "write html code", and be "html coders". Colleges actually offer degrees in this crap today. Students actually major in it. "Yes, I have a degree in Notepad, with a minor in writing code in HTML". Uh huh. Could you mail me that MAKE file for that new webpage? The linker is puking on mine...
So, the product industry is full of useless junk, and they repackage that exact same junk every xxx months with a new name (q.v. PocketPC 2002, vs Windows Mobile 2003. Or, MS Word 95, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 2001, 2002, XP, ETC, ET AL. Or, HP's new marketing campaign. Perfect example.)
And, the consumer (corporate) market is full of useless dolts, who buy the new versions thinking it'll deliver the product they were hoping to get, 12 versions ago when they originally bought it. And meanwhile, they didn't actually *need* it in the first place, because it didn't solve any real problems or enable anything new.
And the reason the consumer (corporate) market is full of these dolts, is because most of them actually THINK that the annotation of text with little bracket signs is "coding". They're clueless, intellectually lazy, and they're only in it because "Mom said it'd be a great career!"
They think the definition of an expert is someone who knows one more buzzword than you. In other words, they're suckers.
Eventually, they get fired / downsized / put out of business. And, they flood the market with all of these credentials, and they DEVALUE those credentials because they themselves are too stupid or lazy to fulfill the roles those credentials allow. "PhD for L1 Tech Support?" "Well, the guy with the 4 BS degrees couldn't handle HTML Programming. I think we need an expert in Notepad this time."
So, the market gets pissed off, and tries to normalize itself. We don't need an upgrade every week... we need a toaster, that does exactly what we need to fulfill our business requirements. Period. Once we get it, it should last for decades without being touched.
I've still got a pair of '286s floating around my shop, crunching away at whatever... because they do the job, and that's all they do, and there is NO POINT in changing them. And when someone discovers them, they stare in horror. "Why don't you upgrade them!!?" Uh, that 286 is a telenet interface to a black-box that has exactly one 300 baud serial interface. The reason it's a 286 is because I couldn't find an XT with a working floppy.
And oddly, usually they "get it" at that point... but they don't like it. They'd literally drop $1500 for a loaded 4Ghz WinXP Pro box with 20 gigs of ram, 100 gigs of drive space... to do nothing more than trap a TCP packet, and pump it out a serial port at 300 baud. Most of you reading this are probably thinking the same thing... "Jesus, dump that piece of $#%^".
Nope, they sell it regardless of it's validity. I've had addresses on my corporate server suddenly receive large torrents of mail, despite the fact that I killed those "names" several years ago.
Once a name is in, valid or not, it stays in. Dictionary mailings pretty much sum it up.
Last time I checked... my network, my terms. No excuses, no exceptions. I don't allow people who visit my building to join their typhoid-mary laptops to my network, ever. I don't allow our employees who bring their typhoid-mary laptops to join my network, ever. If the box is out of my control, its hostile. Period. (Welcome to Windows, btw...)
A college LAN is different, why... exactly... the school is accountable for the network, and therefore must have authority over it. OTOH, with a student who has no accountability for its use, HOW can they have any authority over how it's used? Would YOU accept being on the wrong end of that relationship? With someone else using your stuff? And you're responsible for the results?
Problem is... students have full authority, and it's pretty much unchecked. So, FL is implementing a measure of accountability. Yep, real far-fetched.
And sure, a few knee-jerks will say that the students pay for the school, and that money allows the network to exist, so it's theirs.
And god bless 'em. Here, we've got a couple hundred thousand people per year who cause our income, so the next time you walk into a business... just sit down at a keyboard, and start typing. See how far your "I paid for this" argument gets you in court. No, really... see if they buy it.
Ah, this TCP stuff basically does a flip-flop of the current user issue.
See, right now... users have lots of authority, but no accountability for what happens on their machines. Send a virus to 50 million people? Got Zombied last month and *still* haven't fixed it? It's a nightmare.
TCP will change that, a lot. Once TCP is implemented, users will have little or no authority over their system's behavior, but all of the accountability for what it does.
Bawhaw, I had that one... it was called Drip, though. I modified it to run if the scroll-lock light was off, but do nothing if the light was on.
So, set autoexec to turn on the scroll-lock, and run drip on my dad's secretary's machine. She boots up, and after a few minutes, notices and turns off the scroll lock.
The joke wasn't on her... it was on my old man. 15 minutes later, she knocks on his door, saying "All the letters are falling off my screen..."
a) The spammer's speech isn't free; it costs me money to receive it. Period. b) You're suggesting that DOS attacks should be legal, provided that the packets contain something "speech-like". c) The right to swing your fist is terminated where my nose begins. My network, MY property, my terms. No spam. d) Please, do move them all out of country. Blacklists would be much, much smaller that way... I will never, in my entire life, receive a legit "cold-call" email from a server in Mexico, Canada, Europe, Africa, tw, ch, ur...
This type of banning would not be a sacrifice of liberty. It'd be an acknowlegement of CURTILEGE, which is one @#$load more important than speech, any day. If I am ACCOUNTABLE for my property, then I will have AUTHORITY over it. Anything less is pure suicide.
Hang 'em high. If I get behind the wheel and kill someone because I'm stupid that particular day, I'm still guilty of a crime.
And the CA law at least seems to cover this aspect. If the mailer can be shown to have operated in "due dilligence", there's a reduction. If your machine gets hacked, though, it's pretty tough to argue dilligence... let 'em burn, and burn them hard. Ignorance and arrogance cannot be allowed as a defense, ever.
Warm salt water floats. Cold salt water sinks. BUT... cold fresh water floats on warm salt water. And when it does, it displaces the warm salt water towards the south. And that, of course, pushes the "great conveyor" to the south.
What's that mean? Well, for an ice-age to happen in the past, it means there had to be one heck of a lot of fresh water disrupting the conveyor up north.
So, to the experts who scream, "See? Warming!" I might suggest that you consider that the fresh water doesn't just *go away* when it has melted. It has a definite impact, and it doesn't make things warmer, either.
Next time, learn a little before you open your mouth.
Unlocking the doors, starting the engine and driving away would not require a key unless you were the owner of the car. Complete strangers would be able to drive your car without even getting into it, even if you already happened to be driving the car at the time.
Changing your clothes too drastically between drives would require you to get a new key from the car manufacturer.
Looking at a road sign while driving would get you arrested if the message on that sign is considered "intellectual property".
Driving would eventually become very hazardous as the usage of "pop-up billboards" became more prevailient.
Any disassembly, reverse engineering, removal of tires or checking "under the hood" of your car would be a violation of law. Especially if something on the car doesn't work.
Towing of dead cars would not be permitted. Owners of cars that don't work would be told to drive that car to the nearest dealership. Once you've finished pushing it there, you'd discover that the mechanics at that dealership don't work for the dealership, nor the car manufacturer, and in fact, aren't actually mechanics. They'd ask you if you tried re-starting the car, ask you to remove then reinstall the ignition system, then they'd mumble something about "escalating to level 2 support the next day." Four days later, "level 2 support" would contact you, and tell you the problem is with the place where the car died, not with the car itself. Meanwhile, your car would still not work.
You wouldn't own the car. You'd have a non-exclusive license to go places.
You'd need to apply Patches to your tires on a weekly, sometimes daily, basis.
Driving or Using the car in a manner not explicitly authorized by the car's manufacturer would violate the DMCA.
Driving a car not from your state would violate the car manufacturer's DMCA-enforced "regionalization" rights.
Driving your car out of state, and putting gas in your car from the place you're going to would also violate the DMCA-enforced "regionalization" rights.
After 5 years, the car manufacturer would no longer supply any parts, service, or support. Aftermarket parts would never be allowed, as they would violate copyright. Car manufacturers would force gasoline manufacturers to "upgrade" their fuel products in such a way that they would no longer work well with your car, if at all. Fixing your car to work with these new fuels would violate copyright.
Only one person at a time could use the car unless you bought "CarNT," but then you would have to buy more seats.
Car manufacturers would not be required the deliver the actual car you agreed to buy. You would not be allowed to review the actual car you'll receive until after you have paid to receive it. Specific features and options, such as color, year, make, model, and the presence of a steering wheel or brakes, could be omitted and / or changed by the manufacturer so long as the resulting car "performs substantially in accordance with the accompanying written materials" that will be in the glove-box of the car you eventually get. The car manufacturer would not be obligated to fix anything not "substantially in accordance" with those materials, which describe the car as "a thing that might have at least one wheel."
Car manufacturers would have the right add, change, or remove the features of your car at any time. Every two days, you'd get into your car and something would be different or missing... and something new that you didn't want would be there.
Installing an aftermarket radio into your car would give the radio manufacturer the right to use your car at any time, for any purpose it wishes. Most radios would spend more time telling eveyone else who you are, where you've been, and what you've been saying than they would spend playing music. If the wishes of the radio manufacturer happen to violate the terms of use required by the car manufacturer, both parties sue you for violation of usag
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but not if we also outlaw outlaws having cruise missiles!
Having purchased every version of Windows ever released, and having purchased them directly from MS (up until 3.1), I can tell you with complete authority that the claim for multitasking came straight from them.
I know this simply due to to a simple reality. The reason we bought every version was because we wanted that multitasking, and our purchase inquiries by definition would demand that feature.
Our existing setup was using a product called CDos (Concurrent Dos), by DR. It worked well - it was fully scheduled with threading, etc... but it was overkill, and a little too cumbersome for the job. Windows looked dumb enough to do the job, but it wasn't just "dos-friendly"... it WAS dos. Life would be much easier if just a primitive time-slicer could be had. And Windows x.x has supposedly been exactly that product.
No way in hell would we have purchased Windows unless MS said it would work. And I grilled 'em, every version - "You say it'll task... NOT a specially written app as a TSR, but several 'normal' exe's launched, and it'll time slice them. Yes?" "Absolutely!"
So, since you know MS made no unfounded claims about 'multitasking', I'd have to suggest you check your definition of 'unfounded' and 'claim'. Then again, they weren't unfounded claims. They were statements of fact, at the time.
Windows 1.0 - "Yes! This new version of Windows is a preemptive multitasker!"
Windows 3.0 - "Yes! This new version of Windows is a preemptive multithreaded multitasker!"
Windows 3.1 - "Yes! This new version of Windows is a preemptive multithreaded multitasker!"
Windows 3.11 - "Yes! This new version of Windows is a preemptive 32bit multithreaded multitasker!"
Windows 95 - "Yes! This new version of Windows is a preemptive multithreaded multitasker!"
Windows 95OSR2 - "Yes! This new version of Windows is a preemptive multithreaded multitasker!"
Windows 98 - "Yes! This new version of Windows is a FASTER preemptive multithreaded multitasker!"
Windows 98SE - "Yes! This new version of Windows is a FASTER preemptive multithreaded multitasker!"
Windows ME - "Yes! This new version of Windows is a FASTER preemptive multithreaded multitasker!"
NT 3.5 - "Yes! This new version is rock solid stable, and rock solid secure!"
NT 4 - "Yes! This new version is rock solid stable, and rock solid secure!"
NT 4 SP1 - "Yes! This new version is rock solid stable, and rock solid secure!"
NT 4 SP3 - "Yes! This new version is rock solid stable, and rock solid secure!"
NT 4 SP5 - "Yes! This new version is rock solid stable, and rock solid secure!"
NT 4 SP6 - "Yes! This new version is rock solid stable, and rock solid secure!"
NT 4 SP6A - "Yes! This new version is rock solid stable, and rock solid secure!"
NT 4 SP6ASRP - "Yes! This new version is rock solid stable, and rock solid secure!"
2K - "Yes! This new version is FASTER! Rock solid stable, and rock solid secure!"
XP - "Yes! This new version is FASTER! Rock solid stable, and rock solid secure!"
AS2k2 - "Yes! This new version is FASTER! Rock solid stable, and rock solid secure!"
Longhorn - "Yes! This new version is Trustworthy(tm)!"
...once the new, "pop-up billboards" become common.
I have no problem with your reasoning -- in principle. In reality, though, there's something to be said for using an off-the-shelf current Dell instead of that old 286, for the sole reason that if and when an underutilized Dell dies, you can swap it out with an identical system within a few minutes. On the other hand, finding a replacement 286 with enough working parts to do the job may prove difficult in case of emergency.
Err, ya kinda missed something. Or more likely, I should have made it clearer...
I didn't just throw this 286 on there yesterday. I threw it on there when a 286-12 was the 2nd top dog on the market. If it dies, sure... replace it with the cheapest (new) POS out there. But unless it dies... upgrade? To what end?
This story, right next to 500,000 jobs lost.
.com era. And most of us laughed at it, because it was stupid, pointless, and irrelevent. The bulk of the things developed was, to be blunt, total hogwash. Period.
.coms, however. I remember almost spitting my coffee when I hit a headline, "New 3 Dimensional Database" in some trade rag. And yes, it was just a new buzzword for crap we've been doing in FoxBase, Foxpro, DBase, C, APPLE BASIC, and even COBOL for years. Yep, real new. Had a big price tag on it, too. And people bought it.
...and so on. Morons selling the same old trash, with a newer and bigger buzzword. Idiots buying it, because they're too lazy to learn, over their head, or just plain useless.
A few years ago, there was this huge
The hogwash wasn't just limited to
Then, "Client Server" was also a big buzzword. Yep, real new. Uh...
Of course, "client server" got worn out, and people hated it. So, they invented a new word - "Thin Client". THAT was NEW! In fact, if you got one REVOLUTIONARY enough, it'd even have VT100 emulation! Or Wyse50! Oh, hell, that's not new at all.
Then the website craze began. Morons charging $500/hr to "write html code", and be "html coders". Colleges actually offer degrees in this crap today. Students actually major in it. "Yes, I have a degree in Notepad, with a minor in writing code in HTML". Uh huh. Could you mail me that MAKE file for that new webpage? The linker is puking on mine...
So, the product industry is full of useless junk, and they repackage that exact same junk every xxx months with a new name (q.v. PocketPC 2002, vs Windows Mobile 2003. Or, MS Word 95, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 2001, 2002, XP, ETC, ET AL. Or, HP's new marketing campaign. Perfect example.)
And, the consumer (corporate) market is full of useless dolts, who buy the new versions thinking it'll deliver the product they were hoping to get, 12 versions ago when they originally bought it. And meanwhile, they didn't actually *need* it in the first place, because it didn't solve any real problems or enable anything new.
And the reason the consumer (corporate) market is full of these dolts, is because most of them actually THINK that the annotation of text with little bracket signs is "coding". They're clueless, intellectually lazy, and they're only in it because "Mom said it'd be a great career!"
They think the definition of an expert is someone who knows one more buzzword than you. In other words, they're suckers.
Eventually, they get fired / downsized / put out of business. And, they flood the market with all of these credentials, and they DEVALUE those credentials because they themselves are too stupid or lazy to fulfill the roles those credentials allow. "PhD for L1 Tech Support?" "Well, the guy with the 4 BS degrees couldn't handle HTML Programming. I think we need an expert in Notepad this time."
So, the market gets pissed off, and tries to normalize itself. We don't need an upgrade every week... we need a toaster, that does exactly what we need to fulfill our business requirements. Period. Once we get it, it should last for decades without being touched.
I've still got a pair of '286s floating around my shop, crunching away at whatever... because they do the job, and that's all they do, and there is NO POINT in changing them. And when someone discovers them, they stare in horror. "Why don't you upgrade them!!?" Uh, that 286 is a telenet interface to a black-box that has exactly one 300 baud serial interface. The reason it's a 286 is because I couldn't find an XT with a working floppy.
And oddly, usually they "get it" at that point... but they don't like it. They'd literally drop $1500 for a loaded 4Ghz WinXP Pro box with 20 gigs of ram, 100 gigs of drive space... to do nothing more than trap a TCP packet, and pump it out a serial port at 300 baud. Most of you reading this are probably thinking the same thing... "Jesus, dump that piece of $#%^".
You putz, if there was a method of authentication, the premise for taxing wouldn't exist lol.
Step one: Collect E-Mail!
Step two: ?
Step three: Profit!
You insensitive clod, where do you think you are? Soviet Russia?
This moron intends to collect taxes from offshore spams, how exactly?
This moron intends to collect taxes from ad-hoc, DHCP zombied home-machines, how exactly?
Or perhaps this moron intends to collect taxes based on the spoofed FROM: addresses, how exactly?
This moron intends to audit the messages sent, in order to calculate the amount due, how... exactly? Carnivore III?
Mook.
Nope, they sell it regardless of it's validity. I've had addresses on my corporate server suddenly receive large torrents of mail, despite the fact that I killed those "names" several years ago.
Once a name is in, valid or not, it stays in. Dictionary mailings pretty much sum it up.
Uh, lemme get this straight...
Car Exhaust is causing solar flares?
MOD PARENT FUNNY!
Meanwhile, maybe you should read a little more about Green House Gases...
No, the best way to protect M$ systems is to rip the NIC out, and burn it. Cut the power cord while you're at it, but not before wiping the drives.
"Place a firewall"... jesus, talk about passing the buck...
Last time I checked... my network, my terms. No excuses, no exceptions. I don't allow people who visit my building to join their typhoid-mary laptops to my network, ever. I don't allow our employees who bring their typhoid-mary laptops to join my network, ever. If the box is out of my control, its hostile. Period. (Welcome to Windows, btw...)
A college LAN is different, why... exactly... the school is accountable for the network, and therefore must have authority over it. OTOH, with a student who has no accountability for its use, HOW can they have any authority over how it's used? Would YOU accept being on the wrong end of that relationship? With someone else using your stuff? And you're responsible for the results?
Problem is... students have full authority, and it's pretty much unchecked. So, FL is implementing a measure of accountability. Yep, real far-fetched.
And sure, a few knee-jerks will say that the students pay for the school, and that money allows the network to exist, so it's theirs.
And god bless 'em. Here, we've got a couple hundred thousand people per year who cause our income, so the next time you walk into a business... just sit down at a keyboard, and start typing. See how far your "I paid for this" argument gets you in court. No, really... see if they buy it.
Oh no... it's a trick, it's really hell.
You see, you get 72 virgins... and they stay that way.
"Hey, these bottles of beer have no holes in them!" "Yep, neither do the women."
Those are MP3 and DivX deleting overlords, you insensitive clod!
Ah, this TCP stuff basically does a flip-flop of the current user issue.
See, right now... users have lots of authority, but no accountability for what happens on their machines. Send a virus to 50 million people? Got Zombied last month and *still* haven't fixed it? It's a nightmare.
TCP will change that, a lot. Once TCP is implemented, users will have little or no authority over their system's behavior, but all of the accountability for what it does.
Think about it.
Bawhaw, I had that one... it was called Drip, though. I modified it to run if the scroll-lock light was off, but do nothing if the light was on.
So, set autoexec to turn on the scroll-lock, and run drip on my dad's secretary's machine. She boots up, and after a few minutes, notices and turns off the scroll lock.
The joke wasn't on her... it was on my old man. 15 minutes later, she knocks on his door, saying "All the letters are falling off my screen..."
Ah, I see what I my problem is.
See, I didn't realize that laws were *optional* for people who don't live in a given area...
Well, yes and no.
a) The spammer's speech isn't free; it costs me money to receive it. Period.
b) You're suggesting that DOS attacks should be legal, provided that the packets contain something "speech-like".
c) The right to swing your fist is terminated where my nose begins. My network, MY property, my terms. No spam.
d) Please, do move them all out of country. Blacklists would be much, much smaller that way... I will never, in my entire life, receive a legit "cold-call" email from a server in Mexico, Canada, Europe, Africa, tw, ch, ur...
This type of banning would not be a sacrifice of liberty. It'd be an acknowlegement of CURTILEGE, which is one @#$load more important than speech, any day. If I am ACCOUNTABLE for my property, then I will have AUTHORITY over it. Anything less is pure suicide.
Food for thought, at least.
Cheers,
Err...
> I can't, for the life of me, think of a reason
> why I would possibly want that kind of notification.
Actually, I use those notifications to hunt down the senders and kill them. Well, tell them they're infected anyway.
Hang 'em high. If I get behind the wheel and kill someone because I'm stupid that particular day, I'm still guilty of a crime.
And the CA law at least seems to cover this aspect. If the mailer can be shown to have operated in "due dilligence", there's a reduction. If your machine gets hacked, though, it's pretty tough to argue dilligence... let 'em burn, and burn them hard. Ignorance and arrogance cannot be allowed as a defense, ever.
The operative word in that story was "salinity".
Warm salt water floats. Cold salt water sinks. BUT... cold fresh water floats on warm salt water. And when it does, it displaces the warm salt water towards the south. And that, of course, pushes the "great conveyor" to the south.
What's that mean? Well, for an ice-age to happen in the past, it means there had to be one heck of a lot of fresh water disrupting the conveyor up north.
So, to the experts who scream, "See? Warming!" I might suggest that you consider that the fresh water doesn't just *go away* when it has melted. It has a definite impact, and it doesn't make things warmer, either.
Next time, learn a little before you open your mouth.
...we made a few edits.
Unlocking the doors, starting the engine and driving away would not require a key unless you were the owner of the car. Complete strangers would be able to drive your car without even getting into it, even if you already happened to be driving the car at the time.
Changing your clothes too drastically between drives would require you to get a new key from the car manufacturer.
Looking at a road sign while driving would get you arrested if the message on that sign is considered "intellectual property".
Driving would eventually become very hazardous as the usage of "pop-up billboards" became more prevailient.
Any disassembly, reverse engineering, removal of tires or checking "under the hood" of your car would be a violation of law. Especially if something on the car doesn't work.
Towing of dead cars would not be permitted. Owners of cars that don't work would be told to drive that car to the nearest dealership. Once you've finished pushing it there, you'd discover that the mechanics at that dealership don't work for the dealership, nor the car manufacturer, and in fact, aren't actually mechanics. They'd ask you if you tried re-starting the car, ask you to remove then reinstall the ignition system, then they'd mumble something about "escalating to level 2 support the next day." Four days later, "level 2 support" would contact you, and tell you the problem is with the place where the car died, not with the car itself. Meanwhile, your car would still not work.
You wouldn't own the car. You'd have a non-exclusive license to go places.
You'd need to apply Patches to your tires on a weekly, sometimes daily, basis.
Driving or Using the car in a manner not explicitly authorized by the car's manufacturer would violate the DMCA.
Driving a car not from your state would violate the car manufacturer's DMCA-enforced "regionalization" rights.
Driving your car out of state, and putting gas in your car from the place you're going to would also violate the DMCA-enforced "regionalization" rights.
After 5 years, the car manufacturer would no longer supply any parts, service, or support. Aftermarket parts would never be allowed, as they would violate copyright. Car manufacturers would force gasoline manufacturers to "upgrade" their fuel products in such a way that they would no longer work well with your car, if at all. Fixing your car to work with these new fuels would violate copyright.
Only one person at a time could use the car unless you bought "CarNT," but then you would have to buy more seats.
Car manufacturers would not be required the deliver the actual car you agreed to buy. You would not be allowed to review the actual car you'll receive until after you have paid to receive it. Specific features and options, such as color, year, make, model, and the presence of a steering wheel or brakes, could be omitted and / or changed by the manufacturer so long as the resulting car "performs substantially in accordance with the accompanying written materials" that will be in the glove-box of the car you eventually get. The car manufacturer would not be obligated to fix anything not "substantially in accordance" with those materials, which describe the car as "a thing that might have at least one wheel."
Car manufacturers would have the right add, change, or remove the features of your car at any time. Every two days, you'd get into your car and something would be different or missing... and something new that you didn't want would be there.
Installing an aftermarket radio into your car would give the radio manufacturer the right to use your car at any time, for any purpose it wishes. Most radios would spend more time telling eveyone else who you are, where you've been, and what you've been saying than they would spend playing music. If the wishes of the radio manufacturer happen to violate the terms of use required by the car manufacturer, both parties sue you for violation of usag
... even if Ford DOES expect to get an SCO license (and they must consider that to be a possiblity), it means it's STILL less expensive than MS.