My garage keeps a record of every oil change, tire rotation, and filter change I've had with them. When I go too long without regular maintenance, a computer program automatically sends me a letter to tell me it's time to come in.
What really creeped me out one day was this:
One day I stopped my car by the mailbox to get the mail - it was one of those letters from the garage saying it was time for some "50,000 mile service" thing. I looked at my odometer and saw that it said exactly 50,000.
What are the odds?
(undoubtedly a slash-dot geek is calculating them at this moment)
"Look at how many straws this guy bought last year, Johnson. Big ol' cokehead. Seize his bank account."
This isn't too far from the truth. I recall a story awhile ago about a guy who was investigated because the police had somehow got hold of his supermarket card records, and that he had bought a "suspiciously large" number of plastic baggies.
I've always wondered why they ask you for your name and address whenever you go in to buy a pack of batteries. I'm sure Radioshack has a nice profile on the average slashdotter. Now, you can expect more than just junk mail.
I'd suspect the average slash-dotter tells the slaes clerk to get stuffed when asked for their personal information, like I do.
I completely agree that if the US wants to wipe out or track people that do nothing more than HARM our society instead of HELP our society, then more power to them.
Stupid People Shouldn't Breed
May I presume you've had a vasectomy?
They will get people hooked and then jack up the price to just below the point where it would actually be worth loosing years of data to be rid of them.
Much though we love to hate Microsoft, there was no way that this kind of land grab was what was intended.
I suspect that some lawyer got overzealous when setting up the original legalese, and that MS has now realised what was actually up there.
b - u - l - l - s - h - i - t.
There's NO WAY MS didn't know what was in their own ToS.
True to form, they just wanted to see how much they could get away with before the slack-jawed, glassy-eyed public squealed, or grunted, or did something else that a lab rat in a cage might do when you poke it with an electrical probe.
When a company has hegemonical power in a market, say a market share of 90%+, this is inevitable response. Now that all of their main commercial competition has been obliterated, there's nothing to prevent them from jacking up the price of all of their products.
Like your free IE? Expect to start paying for it within two years. With their browser market share, they can start extending what they've embraced, if they haven't already. Like the free MS Reader? Once they own the e-book market, look for that to cost too. The only reason MS Word readers are free is that there's so little demand for them. Everyone has Word (or something that will read.doc files until they change the format again.)
If everyone is using MS, then it's easier for someone to pay more to keep using MS than it is to use something non-MS. With their huge market share, MS is the standard. Don't like their propritary format? Tough. Don't like the content-protection? Live with it. Don't want your personal information transmitted to marketers? Conspiracy nut. Complain? NO WINDOWS FOR YOU! What are you going to do? Use EMACS? You'll be the highest-tech Luddite. All the multimedia content out on the Internet (built on non-MS systems even) will be useless to you because you hold to your principle.
This is why MS is dangerous, this is why their monoploy is wrong. For all the Libertarian out there who said that while MS was wrong, the DOJ was more wrong, let me make this clear. MS will take away your options and your rights in the new high-tech world. Imagine the complaints about the Sorenson codec applied to everything from.mpg to.html (oops,.htm).
I quoted the entire text of that message because it deserves it.
This is precisely the reason for my interest in Linux at all. I haven't had the endless BSOD that others have complained about. My MS and Windows-based software generally works fine. It's easy to use.
But I cannot be comfortable using monopoly-ware that puts such enormous power in the hands of a single organization. Using Linux is an act of resistance.
Oh I know... what if there was a way for me to pay for and use my software online -- it wouldn't even be stored on my computer! Then I'd have no worries about licensing!
If only Microsoft had some kind of product for me...
I know this has been beaten like a dead horse but, Linux. One copy, one license, 10,000 desktops, it does th office productivity and internetworking that the windows machines do just fine, A good desktop (Gnome, KDE) is intutive enough that retraining would be minimal, not to mention the costs that could be saved. On the flip side, it would take more on the technician end, but I think dropping the cost of 10,000 M$ Windows licenses would more than make up for it.
Today for the first time I actually put pen to paper to figure out what it would take to purge our department of MS. My revelations are as follows:
1) Converting existing IIS/VB/ASP applications to freeware (or Java) counterparts would be a big job. I'm in the process of learning Java, Tomcat/JSP, Apache, and PostgreSQL, and that's a pretty full plate for a middle-of-the-road guy like me. It would be a lot easier there were some websites specifically designed to ease the transition process, but the Linux community seems to be suffering the same complex that Microsoft has until recently - pretending that The Competition doesn't even exist (except as an abstract object of hatred). You want to promote open source? Provide migration resources.
2) User resistance would be high. It's not just a matter of "re-educating" the users - users are people with preferences and prejudices, rightly or wrongly. They like the slick Windows interface with which they're familiar and would view a conversion to a Linux environment as either a forced austerity program, or a "geek conceit" that impacts them negatively. Unfortunately I don't think they're particularly concerned about the evil that lurks in Redmond.
3) Desktop application quality is just not there yet. For us, that would mean primarily OpenOffice and Mozilla. I use these daily, and they crash daily. I know they're 0.x products but that's irrelevant to our needs at this time. Linux the OS has been rock-solid, but Linux the Corporate Desktop has required a real love-is-blind commitment from me - a commitment I seriously doubt our users would adopt. Every crash they experience would cost me points personally in our organization.
4) No suitable counterpart to MS-Access. This is probably our biggest sticking point. We have several Access applications that our users use to update a SQL Server database, and then we serve some of this data up on the web. Access is so easy to use that putting together a quick DB app and linking it to our SQL Server tables is a trivial exercise, and we do it A LOT. Recoding these applications would be a huge job. Even if we just used the "free" runtime version of Access (which came with my developer's edition), ya gotta have Windows to run it on.
So - those are my concerns after a ten-minute thought experiment. Believe me, I'm all ears - if someone has real answers to these concerns, I'd be more than willing to dump MS.
I used to watch The Daily Show religeously when Craig Kilborn and the original correspondents were there. Jon Stewart's self deprecating style gets old fast and now I find the show almost intollerable.
I have to agree with you there. The show's been WONDERFUL these last few days without Jon, with the crew rotating the anchor desk.
I also thought it was better when Craig was on board. I'll quote you back cuz you're right on: "Stewart's self-deprecating style gets old FAST..."
The SNL correspondent you're thinking of is A Whitney Brown, and it was a huge loss when he departed.
What open source alternatives are there that provide similar functionality?
I suggest that any open source implementation require a "services tree" that lists for the user all outside.NET services being used in a given web app. That way the user knows who else is involved in processing your information.
OK, so let's say I'm satisfied enough with TiVO's privacy assurances that I buy the unit and order the service.
But then, the company is sold to someone I distrust, so I discontinue service. Can I continue to use the unti for stuff, or is it brain-dead without a connectino to HQ?
he same company that brought you that ultra-cool dual deck VCR (more than like Go Video, right?),
BINGO!
Stop any and all contact with those corps and groups who deny your fair use rights, who deny your CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS!
That all sounds great - I'd like to avoid doing business with companies that restrict what I can do with a piece of hardware. My question was - Are there any websites out there that can help me make informed buying decisions??
As far as I can tell, TiVO could work without transmitting any information to HQ. Just download the listings and do all processing on the machine.
This is the case for so many "personalization" services, yet the companies are hell-bent on getting data on you. I'd be much more likely to use this stuff if this were an option, instead of relying on "privacy pledges" (HAHAHAAA HEHEEE... hooowee (wiping tears from eyes)... now, that's rich, folks...)
I realize the cost would be greater, and in some cases I'd pay the additional cost for the privacy. Why don't these companies simply make that an option, and put whatever price on it they feel corresponds to the value they lose by not having your information?
So the black helicopters arrive and want your database... So what?
Ya know, some day we're going to learn there really are black helicopters, and all these "anit-alarmists" who have been using the phrase condescendingly are gonna look pretty stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
That would simply make me hate the product.
What really creeped me out one day was this:
One day I stopped my car by the mailbox to get the mail - it was one of those letters from the garage saying it was time for some "50,000 mile service" thing. I looked at my odometer and saw that it said exactly 50,000.
What are the odds?
(undoubtedly a slash-dot geek is calculating them at this moment)
This isn't too far from the truth. I recall a story awhile ago about a guy who was investigated because the police had somehow got hold of his supermarket card records, and that he had bought a "suspiciously large" number of plastic baggies.
I'd suspect the average slash-dotter tells the slaes clerk to get stuffed when asked for their personal information, like I do.
Stupid People Shouldn't Breed May I presume you've had a vasectomy?
Yeppers.
>> I rather doubt that MS's back end will ever be Free. But surely MS will freely avail itself of your back end. So, pretty close.
b - u - l - l - s - h - i - t.
There's NO WAY MS didn't know what was in their own ToS.
True to form, they just wanted to see how much they could get away with before the slack-jawed, glassy-eyed public squealed, or grunted, or did something else that a lab rat in a cage might do when you poke it with an electrical probe.
Like your free IE? Expect to start paying for it within two years. With their browser market share, they can start extending what they've embraced, if they haven't already. Like the free MS Reader? Once they own the e-book market, look for that to cost too. The only reason MS Word readers are free is that there's so little demand for them. Everyone has Word (or something that will read .doc files until they change the format again.)
If everyone is using MS, then it's easier for someone to pay more to keep using MS than it is to use something non-MS. With their huge market share, MS is the standard. Don't like their propritary format? Tough. Don't like the content-protection? Live with it. Don't want your personal information transmitted to marketers? Conspiracy nut. Complain? NO WINDOWS FOR YOU! What are you going to do? Use EMACS? You'll be the highest-tech Luddite. All the multimedia content out on the Internet (built on non-MS systems even) will be useless to you because you hold to your principle.
This is why MS is dangerous, this is why their monoploy is wrong. For all the Libertarian out there who said that while MS was wrong, the DOJ was more wrong, let me make this clear. MS will take away your options and your rights in the new high-tech world. Imagine the complaints about the Sorenson codec applied to everything from .mpg to .html (oops, .htm).
I quoted the entire text of that message because it deserves it.
This is precisely the reason for my interest in Linux at all. I haven't had the endless BSOD that others have complained about. My MS and Windows-based software generally works fine. It's easy to use.
But I cannot be comfortable using monopoly-ware that puts such enormous power in the hands of a single organization. Using Linux is an act of resistance.
MS won't die. If it becomes more profitable to support Linux than to push WinX, that's what it will do.
Now, everyone may have to line up and stab Bill first ("Et tu, Ballmer?"), but in the end the value of the corporation will always come first.
The question is "does it sound like MS's monopoly position is finally dying?". We'll see...
We have a winner!
Today for the first time I actually put pen to paper to figure out what it would take to purge our department of MS. My revelations are as follows:
1) Converting existing IIS/VB/ASP applications to freeware (or Java) counterparts would be a big job. I'm in the process of learning Java, Tomcat/JSP, Apache, and PostgreSQL, and that's a pretty full plate for a middle-of-the-road guy like me. It would be a lot easier there were some websites specifically designed to ease the transition process, but the Linux community seems to be suffering the same complex that Microsoft has until recently - pretending that The Competition doesn't even exist (except as an abstract object of hatred). You want to promote open source? Provide migration resources.
2) User resistance would be high. It's not just a matter of "re-educating" the users - users are people with preferences and prejudices, rightly or wrongly. They like the slick Windows interface with which they're familiar and would view a conversion to a Linux environment as either a forced austerity program, or a "geek conceit" that impacts them negatively. Unfortunately I don't think they're particularly concerned about the evil that lurks in Redmond.
3) Desktop application quality is just not there yet. For us, that would mean primarily OpenOffice and Mozilla. I use these daily, and they crash daily. I know they're 0.x products but that's irrelevant to our needs at this time. Linux the OS has been rock-solid, but Linux the Corporate Desktop has required a real love-is-blind commitment from me - a commitment I seriously doubt our users would adopt. Every crash they experience would cost me points personally in our organization.
4) No suitable counterpart to MS-Access. This is probably our biggest sticking point. We have several Access applications that our users use to update a SQL Server database, and then we serve some of this data up on the web. Access is so easy to use that putting together a quick DB app and linking it to our SQL Server tables is a trivial exercise, and we do it A LOT. Recoding these applications would be a huge job. Even if we just used the "free" runtime version of Access (which came with my developer's edition), ya gotta have Windows to run it on.
So - those are my concerns after a ten-minute thought experiment. Believe me, I'm all ears - if someone has real answers to these concerns, I'd be more than willing to dump MS.
Uh, that's "misspell", not "mispell".
...and "50-50 or call a friend?" These two phrases still make me laugh when I just think of them...
I have to agree with you there. The show's been WONDERFUL these last few days without Jon, with the crew rotating the anchor desk.
I also thought it was better when Craig was on board. I'll quote you back cuz you're right on: "Stewart's self-deprecating style gets old FAST..."
The SNL correspondent you're thinking of is A Whitney Brown, and it was a huge loss when he departed.
> The Daily Show must be censored. It's the only way we'll be able to preserve our freedom of speech. Touche, you had me going :-)
I suggest that any open source implementation require a "services tree" that lists for the user all outside .NET services being used in a given web app. That way the user knows who else is involved in processing your information.
Awwww yeah, Levon. Come on an' lemme sit on this puddin'.
...that it is only a matter of time before one of the developers scans his wang into this thing (if they haven't done it alread).
But then, the company is sold to someone I distrust, so I discontinue service. Can I continue to use the unti for stuff, or is it brain-dead without a connectino to HQ?
BINGO!
Stop any and all contact with those corps and groups who deny your fair use rights, who deny your CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS!
That all sounds great - I'd like to avoid doing business with companies that restrict what I can do with a piece of hardware. My question was - Are there any websites out there that can help me make informed buying decisions??
Are you aware of any TV listing services that it could work with, so that it could do the "smart" stuff like search for topics of interest to you?
This is the case for so many "personalization" services, yet the companies are hell-bent on getting data on you. I'd be much more likely to use this stuff if this were an option, instead of relying on "privacy pledges" (HAHAHAAA HEHEEE... hooowee (wiping tears from eyes)... now, that's rich, folks...)
I realize the cost would be greater, and in some cases I'd pay the additional cost for the privacy. Why don't these companies simply make that an option, and put whatever price on it they feel corresponds to the value they lose by not having your information?
It's all just anonymous viewing data harvested by area, and has no ties with you whatsoeve
scuse me professor, but if the data that is being sent is now encrypted, how do we know *what* it contains?
Ya know, some day we're going to learn there really are black helicopters, and all these "anit-alarmists" who have been using the phrase condescendingly are gonna look pretty stupid.