"I'm left wondering how you can file a series of lawsuits inadvertently."
Easy. Lobby your incompetent bunch of lawmakers to pass an industry sweetheart bill allowing you to file them in bulk, at little to no risk or cost to the filer, and in defiance of centuries of legal precedent.
If they hadn't filed those suits, they would have been sued by their shareholders for gross negligence.
It was a foregone conclusion of the DMCA, not a malicious act. Blame Congress. They're a bunch of lawyers, and they should know better than to create a special legal circumstance for a special interest with lots of money and power to begin with.
Interesting, and maybe it is just a fad, but I think you're mistaken on one point. It doesn't all boil down to software. It boils down to total market penetration, and specifically one good exclusive title that makes everyone buy your system. If that game is the freebie that comes with the console, you're going to get amazing market penetration, even if that game only has faddish appeal. Wii Sports has only faddish appeal, but it gets the console everywhere, fast, and that will bring good software eventually.
The only thing that will stop that is if developers don't want to bother with the Wii's somewhat obtuse controls, which is definitely a possibility.
But by the time this is all said and done, there are going to be more Wiis in more homes than any other console, and that will almost certainly attract the developers. Nintendo may not have the respect of the hard core gamer, and doesn't deserve it, IMHO, after rehashing the same IP over and over again and focusing on children, but they do have a recipe for success. They are going to make a lot of money, especially if they're not lying about selling those consoles and accessories at a profit.
Here's the truth also, Mr. Simmons. No business model will work because in the age of computerized publication, content is no longer a business. Period. It's too easy to produce when your average high-school student, with a job as a checkout bagger, has access to cheap (and complete) digital publication and production tools.
I can do the job of what used to be a $1M+ recording studio/pressing plant on a $500 PC, and post it to a bittorrent on a $25 Internet account, and retain full rights. This means I can't make money off of the music alone. QED.
This brings us back to square one, as you say, "The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care?"
Right again, Mr. Simmons. Music is no longer a business. Trading oil futures is a business. Music is not. It is about the music, again. All you businessmen need to find a business to get into. I suspect you were never actually a musician, but I could be wrong.
Gutenberg put a lot of preachers and wandering storytellers out of business too. He put the entire Catholic Church out of business, in fact, in the space of about 100 years. This is the kind of change we are talking about here. This is big. I think we should do it with fewer "Inquisitions" this time, if we can avoid them, as you so stupidly encourage.
It's also quite normal. The world changes. There is no longer a business model for making money off of content. End result: There's a mountain of crap out there and it's harder to find quality stuff, but there's a banquet of quality under that mountain, so you must make money some other way. There's no longer any money in content alone.
You want a business model? Reliably help people sift through all the crap. You'll be in direct competition with Google, of course.
Sad but true. Your day is over, Gene. Adapt or die already.
Looks like they finally got a "cease and desist" letter for trademark infringement (the relevant TM being "Open Document"). That didn't take long. Good riddance.
This is a textbook violation of trademark. If they don't sue at this point, they will lose control of the name "Open Document Format" itself. "Office Open XML" was pushing it, this is just plain pure trademark violation so some smart-ass Microsoft executive can claim that "the Open Document Foundation has abandoned the Open Document format."
It's also probably defamation, and if there is a money trail between the Foundation and Microsoft, there are damages to be had.
It's time to serve some papers. If anyone works with the organization, forward their legal department a copy of the article with a brief reminder that trademark violations must be defended, or you lose your trademark.
Are you going to edit this article so that it clearly states that the "Open Document Foundation" has nothing to do with Open Document Format (ODF), other than that they are also in the "document" business?
For crying out loud, this is a garbage summary that deliberately leaves out necessary context for no other apparent purpose than to mislead the reader into thinking it matters what this "foundation" thinks.
FROM TFA:
The OpenDocument Foundation Inc. doesn't have any control over ODF. Contrast with the OASIS ODF specification boilerplate:
The names "OASIS", "OpenDocument", "Open Document Format" and "ODF" are trademarks of OASIS, the owner and developer of this specification, and should be used only to refer to the organization and its official outputs. OASIS welcomes reference to, and implementation and use of, specifications, while reserving the right to enforce its marks against misleading uses. Please see http://www.oasis-open.org/who/trademark.php for above guidance. This is hogwash, not Slashdot. The only point of leaving it "as is" is to spur OASIS into trademark action, and I think there are better ways of doing that.
Another reason for vinyl's sonic superiority is that no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary. Yes, but it can contain twice the audio data anyone is capable of hearing, which is the point. Your claim holds about as much water as recording industry claims that MP3's contribute to hearing loss because they are incomplete.
Vinyl playback adds all sorts of qualities to the sound. It is warmer, and I prefer it, but it is in no way superior because it has better "accuracy." It is a subjective preference, not a scientific syllogism.
I'm sure somebody already mentioned this, but I'm just going to add to the pile, because you need to be told this more than once.
Successful RICO claims provide for triple damage awards in civil cases. (emph. added) I don't care what firm is bringing this case to trial, if there's a law that involves automatic triple damages, then they're going to try the case under that law, especially if it's a crap shoot to begin with.
Basically, this is taking automatic 3:1 odds on a longshot, just by choosing the right kind of tort. That's why they're suing under RICO.
Follow the money. If they can shoehorn in RICO, they will. They'd be, under conventional legal ethical standards, foolish and derelict not to.
Is one that bundles a fire extinguisher with the darned thing (labeled "Go to blazes").
I hope the new process chips work out for them, or it's going to be a much rougher ride than a simple $1 bn one-time expense and PR damage control. This one was not ready for prime time. It's a defective product, and if MS doesn't make good, there's going to be class actions.
This sounds remarkably like this article about how Firefox can send bad URIs to IE 7. It didn't affect IE 6. Many swore this was a "Firefox vulnerability."
Now we have this workaround (link to bulletin):
To protect Windows XP systems with Internet Explorer 7 installed from this vulnerability, administrators can disable the mailto: option in Acrobat, Acrobat 3D 8 and Adobe Reader by modifying the application options in the Windows registry. Additionally, these changes can be added to network deployments to Windows systems. Again, involving the mailto: protocol, but more notably, again, only if you have IE 7 installed.
How many times are we going to blame the wrong application for the problem? This is clearly an IE 7 flaw, as it is the common denominator. It's probably better termed a Windows XP URI handler problem, as the IE libraries are part of the OS.
At least Vista gets a pass in this case, but is the next line from Redmond going to be that since no vendor can write secure communications applications for XP, we should all switch to Vista? Why not just fix IE 7 (or revert everyone to IE 6, and keep a modest patch cycle up for XP's service lifetime)?
Oh, and hasn't MS been ratcheting up competition with Adobe for years? That would suggest that this isn't just an OS flaw, it's a modus operandi. Is a product wiping the walls with you? Not since IE 7 came to town, now they have a security flaw. The same security flaw. That requires IE 7.
I'm certainly not taking MS's high-security upgrade to IE 7 on Windows XP until they fix this mess. We need to demand accountability from Redmond. This might not be deliberate, but Microsoft, and their press lackeys, are willfully ignoring problems with their software.
Of course, it was never just a simple transaction of "money for writing." Nobody would write on spec otherwise. It was about getting published, in an expanding mass market, so there's always been a bit of business sense involved. This is simply a change in paradigm, not a disaster.
Writing is now much more like mass media. You (the writer) write something good, and then you get an audience, and you're going to have to take additional steps to make money from that. If you can't do that, then instead of going to a publisher, the writer will need to find some marketers to help with merchandising.
This new economy doesn't translate well for florid, Victorian era writing because you can't fit that crap on a coffee mug or a T-shirt. No one's being paid by the word any more. Many don't have the time to read all that verbiage.
But when something is available to everyone, as publication now is, it becomes essentially worthless. QED.
Publication, the ability to physically publish or produce media, is rapidly becoming worthless, because everyone can do it for negligible costs. I sense that the publication/distribution industry is running on inertia at this point, or, if you prefer, it's in free fall and has just about hit terminal velocity. Mind you, it doesn't necessarily have to hit the ground, but it's not going any faster.
The workers now own the means of production in this industry. Creative Commons is one seminal, if somewhat inchoate, way to "profit" from it. Money is not the only form of compensation. It's a tool amongst many, not an end. Some of the authors in this article lack the imagination to realize that.
They should take note of Bulwer-Lytton's old saw that "The pen is mightier than the sword." That would sell some serious T-shirts. The only writers who are worried about these developments are the ones who never figured out what "Step 3. Profit" actually means. You have to do something with all that money for it to be a meaningful profit.
From the article:
Canada Post - which is used to deliver the products - has an internal investigation under way, spokesperson Manon Clément confirmed.
"It seems like a pretty big dossier," she said, noting the company under investigation "is a client operating under a number of names."
The RCMP, Sûreté du Québec and Montreal police departments said they neither confirm nor deny that they are investigating individuals or firms.
If Garcia Media or anyone associated with it is dealing in bootlegs of copyrighted material, there are legal consequences. Multiple aliases? Looks to me like there's a well documented criminal mail fraud investigation underway. Sounds like the police are at least notified of the situation as well. Should the MPAA jump in with a potentially premature suit, prior to the completion of criminal evidence collection and the presentation of charges?
It seems that as far as the MPAA is concerned, this is a pending matter already referred to law enforcement. Whether criminal investigation bears fruit or not, I'm sure they'll sue. If there's a conviction, that's easy money. If there's no conviction, then they'll go to civil court to deter such activities.
But I'd guess "no comment" is the best comment on the part of the MPAA at this point. After all, even the police won't comment. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Regarding the "silent update," the article says this:
If AU is not turned on, you'll be prompted to let Windows Update upgrade itself before you can installing any other updates. Consequently, users are forced to get the silent update before they can attempt to install Microsoft's latest security patches. In other words, if you haven't yet accepted this update, you will be PROMPTED to update your WU before you can accept more updates.
My understanding of a "silent update" is that the user is never prompted, yet the article seems to state that the user is prompted unless full automatic updates are turned on, in which case, all updates are promptless because the user has chosen that method of update.
I don't think that passes muster for a "stealth" or "silent" update? Do you?
Um. The U.S. are also "international customers" to Lego. Lego is a Danish-owned company.
The name 'LEGO' is an abbreviation of the two Danish words "leg godt", meaning "play well". It's our name and it's our ideal.
The LEGO Group was founded in 1932 by Ole Kirk Christiansen. The Company has passed from father to son and is now owned by Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen, a grandchild of the founder.
It has come a long way over the past 70 years - from a small carpenter's workshop to a modern, global enterprise that is now, in terms of sales, the world's sixth-largest manufacturer of toys. (Source: Lego corporate website)
Could Slashdot editors please have a group discussion about accuracy and integrity in journalism? First it was the WordPress piece, that was rightly amended, and now there's this. Both deal with a fear that "someone" is spying on us. Anyone who deals with computer security deals with that fear on a regular basis, but those fears should not be expressed in the journalism: Facts should.
As many have mentioned, this feature can be found in the Firefox 2.0.0.7 security tab under "Tell me if the site I'm visiting is a suspected forgery." The summary is flat-out misleading, and contains links to a general page about all Firefox 3 features (which does not mention Google in the slightest), and the entire discussion about Firefox 2 memory leaks, not the relevant posts the author seems to reference.
There literally is no "FA" to "R" in the first place, and the summary is inaccurate, not only in its facts, but because it is summarizing nothing.
This editorial behavior gives Slashdot a bad name, and moves it a step towards the irrelevancy of The National Inquirer. I've been bringing buckets of salt to take with this site in the past weeks, and would like to see these trends reversed.
Please discuss it.
(I've shut off the Karma bonus on this post, it should fly on its own merits. I'm not posting "AC," because if I'm out of line here, I'm willing to pay the price for it.)
My take on it was that Gates realized that all the easy money to be made had been made, and there was no point, with his net worth, trying to make yet more money for Microsoft. Besides, at that point, with near complete market dominance, the only place MS had to go was down.
The only options: Maintenance, diversification, or decay. The American stockholder does not suffer maintenance, even if you've reached 100% market saturation, and diversification couldn't have been particularly interesting to a guy who fell in love with the personal computer. I doubt he gives a darn about the X-Box and the Zune beyond pride in his own company. The only thing that Microsoft is doing right now that seems to fit with his personal style is Silverlight.
So he packed it in and decided to do something useful with all that money. He is secure in the fact that he won. He pretty much achieved his stated goal of a world of personal computers, all running Microsoft software, and we all know that 100% is reserved for God. He won even to the point of getting a degree from Harvard, and that's all Bill really cares about as far as Microsoft is concerned.
He won, and he was too smart to hang around to wait until someone could make him lose. I don't think he was distancing himself from a bad company. He just quit when he had achieved what he wanted.
Smart guy.
-- Toro
(Wow. That came out a lot longer than I intended.)
I think you're exactly right, and what we are seeing is one of the critical flaws in an autocratic hierarchy, which is how most American business is run. If you get the wrong person at the top, eventually his or her poor judgment travels all the way down and throughout the hierarchy.
I don't think an absurdly steep punitive fine applied to a counterfeiter is going to have much effect on the P2P crowd either, but thanks for the clarification. I hadn't seen it as a deterrence action.
Oh-oh. It's not good when a desktop OS's rep gets to the "mom can't e-mail" stage. That argument is usually employed against Linux distros (and rightly so, IMHO).
There's even a potential bumper sticker/T-Shirt market: "Even your mom knows Vista sucks."
Man alive, if that anecdote's even remotely true, it flat-out trumps the more technically oriented reports in indicating that Redmond is in serious trouble.
To those who are "flying the Jolly Roger," RTFA guys:
[He] was arrested in June for selling pirated games and mod chips over Craigslist and other online sites (emph. added) That was criminal copyright violation ("infringement for personal gain") long before the DMCA ever defaced the law books. He had a 1000 CD's ready to sell, and a stock of circumvention kits to go with it to enable his business.
He was a counterfeiter. He should be thrown in jail with the rest of the drug dealers, prostitutes, con men and other smalltime ne'er-do-wells until he sobers up. This kind of thing must be pursued and stopped for the health of the industry, and the rule of law in general.
This is going after the dealers instead of going after the junkies, and it's the right way to go. I applaud the San Diego police (and prosecutors) for going after folks are causing true harm.
On the other hand, the punitive fine ($100,000 - ten times the awarded damages of $10,000) seemed absurdly steep. Without knowing the man's means, it's hard to believe that this was a fair judgment. It's a warning sign when the jail time and the punitive fines are so completely incongruous.
Slashdot Mirror
"I'm left wondering how you can file a series of lawsuits inadvertently."
Easy. Lobby your incompetent bunch of lawmakers to pass an industry sweetheart bill allowing you to file them in bulk, at little to no risk or cost to the filer, and in defiance of centuries of legal precedent.
If they hadn't filed those suits, they would have been sued by their shareholders for gross negligence.
It was a foregone conclusion of the DMCA, not a malicious act. Blame Congress. They're a bunch of lawyers, and they should know better than to create a special legal circumstance for a special interest with lots of money and power to begin with.
--
Toro
Interesting, and maybe it is just a fad, but I think you're mistaken on one point. It doesn't all boil down to software. It boils down to total market penetration, and specifically one good exclusive title that makes everyone buy your system. If that game is the freebie that comes with the console, you're going to get amazing market penetration, even if that game only has faddish appeal. Wii Sports has only faddish appeal, but it gets the console everywhere, fast, and that will bring good software eventually.
The only thing that will stop that is if developers don't want to bother with the Wii's somewhat obtuse controls, which is definitely a possibility.
But by the time this is all said and done, there are going to be more Wiis in more homes than any other console, and that will almost certainly attract the developers. Nintendo may not have the respect of the hard core gamer, and doesn't deserve it, IMHO, after rehashing the same IP over and over again and focusing on children, but they do have a recipe for success. They are going to make a lot of money, especially if they're not lying about selling those consoles and accessories at a profit.
--
Toro
"That's not a business model that works."
Truer words were never spoken.
Here's the truth also, Mr. Simmons. No business model will work because in the age of computerized publication, content is no longer a business. Period. It's too easy to produce when your average high-school student, with a job as a checkout bagger, has access to cheap (and complete) digital publication and production tools.
I can do the job of what used to be a $1M+ recording studio/pressing plant on a $500 PC, and post it to a bittorrent on a $25 Internet account, and retain full rights. This means I can't make money off of the music alone. QED.
This brings us back to square one, as you say, "The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care?"
Right again, Mr. Simmons. Music is no longer a business. Trading oil futures is a business. Music is not. It is about the music, again. All you businessmen need to find a business to get into. I suspect you were never actually a musician, but I could be wrong.
Gutenberg put a lot of preachers and wandering storytellers out of business too. He put the entire Catholic Church out of business, in fact, in the space of about 100 years. This is the kind of change we are talking about here. This is big. I think we should do it with fewer "Inquisitions" this time, if we can avoid them, as you so stupidly encourage.
It's also quite normal. The world changes. There is no longer a business model for making money off of content. End result: There's a mountain of crap out there and it's harder to find quality stuff, but there's a banquet of quality under that mountain, so you must make money some other way. There's no longer any money in content alone.
You want a business model? Reliably help people sift through all the crap. You'll be in direct competition with Google, of course.
Sad but true. Your day is over, Gene. Adapt or die already.
--
Toro
Looks like they finally got a "cease and desist" letter for trademark infringement (the relevant TM being "Open Document"). That didn't take long. Good riddance.
--
Toro
That is the best Discordian post I've ever seen.
((23))
This is a textbook violation of trademark. If they don't sue at this point, they will lose control of the name "Open Document Format" itself. "Office Open XML" was pushing it, this is just plain pure trademark violation so some smart-ass Microsoft executive can claim that "the Open Document Foundation has abandoned the Open Document format."
It's also probably defamation, and if there is a money trail between the Foundation and Microsoft, there are damages to be had.
It's time to serve some papers. If anyone works with the organization, forward their legal department a copy of the article with a brief reminder that trademark violations must be defended, or you lose your trademark.
--
Toro
For crying out loud, this is a garbage summary that deliberately leaves out necessary context for no other apparent purpose than to mislead the reader into thinking it matters what this "foundation" thinks.
FROM TFA: The OpenDocument Foundation Inc. doesn't have any control over ODF. Contrast with the OASIS ODF specification boilerplate: The names "OASIS", "OpenDocument", "Open Document Format" and "ODF" are trademarks of OASIS, the owner and developer of this specification, and should be used only to refer to the organization and its official outputs. OASIS welcomes reference to, and implementation and use of, specifications, while reserving the right to enforce its marks against misleading uses. Please see http://www.oasis-open.org/who/trademark.php for above guidance. This is hogwash, not Slashdot. The only point of leaving it "as is" is to spur OASIS into trademark action, and I think there are better ways of doing that.
--
Toro
Vinyl playback adds all sorts of qualities to the sound. It is warmer, and I prefer it, but it is in no way superior because it has better "accuracy." It is a subjective preference, not a scientific syllogism.
I'm sure somebody already mentioned this, but I'm just going to add to the pile, because you need to be told this more than once.
--
Toro
This reminds me a bit of when CDDB became Gracenote.
--
Toro
I thought Gutsy Gibbon was going to be an LTS (long term support) version? Has LTS been bumped up to the next version?
--
Toro
Basically, this is taking automatic 3:1 odds on a longshot, just by choosing the right kind of tort. That's why they're suing under RICO.
Follow the money. If they can shoehorn in RICO, they will. They'd be, under conventional legal ethical standards, foolish and derelict not to.
--
Toro
Is one that bundles a fire extinguisher with the darned thing (labeled "Go to blazes").
I hope the new process chips work out for them, or it's going to be a much rougher ride than a simple $1 bn one-time expense and PR damage control. This one was not ready for prime time. It's a defective product, and if MS doesn't make good, there's going to be class actions.
--
Toro
Now we have this workaround (link to bulletin): To protect Windows XP systems with Internet Explorer 7 installed from this vulnerability, administrators can disable the mailto: option in Acrobat, Acrobat 3D 8 and Adobe Reader by modifying the application options in the Windows registry. Additionally, these changes can be added to network deployments to Windows systems. Again, involving the mailto: protocol, but more notably, again, only if you have IE 7 installed.
How many times are we going to blame the wrong application for the problem? This is clearly an IE 7 flaw, as it is the common denominator. It's probably better termed a Windows XP URI handler problem, as the IE libraries are part of the OS.
At least Vista gets a pass in this case, but is the next line from Redmond going to be that since no vendor can write secure communications applications for XP, we should all switch to Vista? Why not just fix IE 7 (or revert everyone to IE 6, and keep a modest patch cycle up for XP's service lifetime)?
Oh, and hasn't MS been ratcheting up competition with Adobe for years? That would suggest that this isn't just an OS flaw, it's a modus operandi. Is a product wiping the walls with you? Not since IE 7 came to town, now they have a security flaw. The same security flaw. That requires IE 7.
I'm certainly not taking MS's high-security upgrade to IE 7 on Windows XP until they fix this mess. We need to demand accountability from Redmond. This might not be deliberate, but Microsoft, and their press lackeys, are willfully ignoring problems with their software.
--
Toro
Of course, it was never just a simple transaction of "money for writing." Nobody would write on spec otherwise. It was about getting published, in an expanding mass market, so there's always been a bit of business sense involved. This is simply a change in paradigm, not a disaster.
Writing is now much more like mass media. You (the writer) write something good, and then you get an audience, and you're going to have to take additional steps to make money from that. If you can't do that, then instead of going to a publisher, the writer will need to find some marketers to help with merchandising.
This new economy doesn't translate well for florid, Victorian era writing because you can't fit that crap on a coffee mug or a T-shirt. No one's being paid by the word any more. Many don't have the time to read all that verbiage.
But when something is available to everyone, as publication now is, it becomes essentially worthless. QED.
Publication, the ability to physically publish or produce media, is rapidly becoming worthless, because everyone can do it for negligible costs. I sense that the publication/distribution industry is running on inertia at this point, or, if you prefer, it's in free fall and has just about hit terminal velocity. Mind you, it doesn't necessarily have to hit the ground, but it's not going any faster.
The workers now own the means of production in this industry. Creative Commons is one seminal, if somewhat inchoate, way to "profit" from it. Money is not the only form of compensation. It's a tool amongst many, not an end. Some of the authors in this article lack the imagination to realize that.
They should take note of Bulwer-Lytton's old saw that "The pen is mightier than the sword." That would sell some serious T-shirts. The only writers who are worried about these developments are the ones who never figured out what "Step 3. Profit" actually means. You have to do something with all that money for it to be a meaningful profit.
--
Toro
Good idea. Turn off you monitors before reading this, because I'll come after you for using a ROT26 circumvention device. ;^)
Seriously though, lawyers can threaten you with any legal theory they can dream up. That doesn't mean it'll stand up in a court.
Remember: It's possible get your J.D. with a "C" average, and then pass the bar on your 14th try. I'm embarrassed for these guys.
--
Toro
"It seems like a pretty big dossier," she said, noting the company under investigation "is a client operating under a number of names."
The RCMP, Sûreté du Québec and Montreal police departments said they neither confirm nor deny that they are investigating individuals or firms.
If Garcia Media or anyone associated with it is dealing in bootlegs of copyrighted material, there are legal consequences. Multiple aliases? Looks to me like there's a well documented criminal mail fraud investigation underway. Sounds like the police are at least notified of the situation as well. Should the MPAA jump in with a potentially premature suit, prior to the completion of criminal evidence collection and the presentation of charges?
It seems that as far as the MPAA is concerned, this is a pending matter already referred to law enforcement. Whether criminal investigation bears fruit or not, I'm sure they'll sue. If there's a conviction, that's easy money. If there's no conviction, then they'll go to civil court to deter such activities.
But I'd guess "no comment" is the best comment on the part of the MPAA at this point. After all, even the police won't comment. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
--
Toro
My understanding of a "silent update" is that the user is never prompted, yet the article seems to state that the user is prompted unless full automatic updates are turned on, in which case, all updates are promptless because the user has chosen that method of update.
I don't think that passes muster for a "stealth" or "silent" update? Do you?
--
Toro
The LEGO Group was founded in 1932 by Ole Kirk Christiansen. The Company has passed from father to son and is now owned by Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen, a grandchild of the founder.
It has come a long way over the past 70 years - from a small carpenter's workshop to a modern, global enterprise that is now, in terms of sales, the world's sixth-largest manufacturer of toys. (Source: Lego corporate website)
--
Toro (whose grandpa was named Torvald)
I am legitimately not trying to troll here.
Could Slashdot editors please have a group discussion about accuracy and integrity in journalism? First it was the WordPress piece, that was rightly amended, and now there's this. Both deal with a fear that "someone" is spying on us. Anyone who deals with computer security deals with that fear on a regular basis, but those fears should not be expressed in the journalism: Facts should.
As many have mentioned, this feature can be found in the Firefox 2.0.0.7 security tab under "Tell me if the site I'm visiting is a suspected forgery." The summary is flat-out misleading, and contains links to a general page about all Firefox 3 features (which does not mention Google in the slightest), and the entire discussion about Firefox 2 memory leaks, not the relevant posts the author seems to reference.
There literally is no "FA" to "R" in the first place, and the summary is inaccurate, not only in its facts, but because it is summarizing nothing.
This editorial behavior gives Slashdot a bad name, and moves it a step towards the irrelevancy of The National Inquirer. I've been bringing buckets of salt to take with this site in the past weeks, and would like to see these trends reversed.
Please discuss it.
(I've shut off the Karma bonus on this post, it should fly on its own merits. I'm not posting "AC," because if I'm out of line here, I'm willing to pay the price for it.)
--
Toro
My take on it was that Gates realized that all the easy money to be made had been made, and there was no point, with his net worth, trying to make yet more money for Microsoft. Besides, at that point, with near complete market dominance, the only place MS had to go was down.
The only options: Maintenance, diversification, or decay. The American stockholder does not suffer maintenance, even if you've reached 100% market saturation, and diversification couldn't have been particularly interesting to a guy who fell in love with the personal computer. I doubt he gives a darn about the X-Box and the Zune beyond pride in his own company. The only thing that Microsoft is doing right now that seems to fit with his personal style is Silverlight.
So he packed it in and decided to do something useful with all that money. He is secure in the fact that he won. He pretty much achieved his stated goal of a world of personal computers, all running Microsoft software, and we all know that 100% is reserved for God. He won even to the point of getting a degree from Harvard, and that's all Bill really cares about as far as Microsoft is concerned.
He won, and he was too smart to hang around to wait until someone could make him lose. I don't think he was distancing himself from a bad company. He just quit when he had achieved what he wanted.
Smart guy.
--
Toro
(Wow. That came out a lot longer than I intended.)
I think you're exactly right, and what we are seeing is one of the critical flaws in an autocratic hierarchy, which is how most American business is run. If you get the wrong person at the top, eventually his or her poor judgment travels all the way down and throughout the hierarchy.
--
Toro
I don't think an absurdly steep punitive fine applied to a counterfeiter is going to have much effect on the P2P crowd either, but thanks for the clarification. I hadn't seen it as a deterrence action.
--
Toro
Oh-oh. It's not good when a desktop OS's rep gets to the "mom can't e-mail" stage. That argument is usually employed against Linux distros (and rightly so, IMHO).
There's even a potential bumper sticker/T-Shirt market: "Even your mom knows Vista sucks."
Man alive, if that anecdote's even remotely true, it flat-out trumps the more technically oriented reports in indicating that Redmond is in serious trouble.
--
Toro
Maybe someone figured out a way to use Excel 2003 as a platform for audio/video capture and it too was "fixed" to please the content industry? ;^)
--
Toro
He was a counterfeiter. He should be thrown in jail with the rest of the drug dealers, prostitutes, con men and other smalltime ne'er-do-wells until he sobers up. This kind of thing must be pursued and stopped for the health of the industry, and the rule of law in general.
This is going after the dealers instead of going after the junkies, and it's the right way to go. I applaud the San Diego police (and prosecutors) for going after folks are causing true harm.
On the other hand, the punitive fine ($100,000 - ten times the awarded damages of $10,000) seemed absurdly steep. Without knowing the man's means, it's hard to believe that this was a fair judgment. It's a warning sign when the jail time and the punitive fines are so completely incongruous.
--
Toro