In a government environment, how many secretaries do you know that play around with the settings in Windows?? How many know how to change screen resolutions? Most of these functions are locked out anyway! Indeed there is a whole set of third party addons specifically to deal with the "enduser is the admin" misfeature of Windows.
In a corporate environment, things are controlled and setup via the sys admins. Setting up a user with KDE (or whatever), office package, and they should have little trouble using the system.
One big problem with a lot of more recent GUI apps, especially ports from Windows or attempts to clone Windows apps is that centralised configuration is ignored. Traditional unix apps would have a central config file and per user configs, some of the more recent stuff only has per user. Even worst expecting end users to set things up, everything from web proxies to huge forms which Star Office comes up with...
I can't think of one secretary that knows what a command line is,
But it's fine for Windows to puke up CPU registers and stack frames when programs crash at them? Or they should have to know about such things as defragmenting disks There are plenty of ways in which Windows really is "too technical" for the average user.
Here in Colorado, we have a statute prohibiting such designation of suppliers. However, that statute is so damn vague that it might as well not exist. It prohibits a supply officer from telling a contractor to "buy the carburators from my cousin's shop over in Littleton." It MIGHT prohibit a municipality from signing on to the HUD-Smith and Wesson deal of a few years ago. It doesn't prohibit our supply officer from requiring W2K because "that's the only option that most of us have any clue how to use."
It's quite possible the statute, if actually applied, would forbid buying Microsoft. But the people charged with enforcement just arn't interested when it comes to software.
Point 1: For 95% of what the average person does, Windows is interchangeable with GNOME, Office is interchangeable with StarOffice, and the Big Blue 'E' can be replaced with Mozilla. They're not "used to Windows," per se.
Windows (and MS Office) is something of a "moving target" anyway when it comes to the end user. How can these supposedly stupid people possibly cope. Maybe it's more that it is "cool" to claim that "computers are hard". (In terms of actual brain power the complicated part of a computer is actually operating the user interface anyway.) A lot of the time when people are actually using Windows it involves things such as defragmenting disks, which an end user shouldn't really need to be bothered with in the first place....
A specious lie if I ever heard one. Has everyone lost their short term memories? Think back just a mere ten years ago. All the schools were teaching Lotus-123 and Wordperfect. I actually know someone that got a certificate in Wordperfect! Another has an AA in DOS!!! To assume that the applications of the future will be identical to the ones used today is ludicrous. Using that premise to educate students is irresponsible.
Especially when some of the students used as pawns in this kind of argument are aged 5 rather than 20.
If you want to prepare students for the real world, teach them the basics. Teach them how to software engineering, not how to use Java or C++. Teach them how to create business documents, not how to use MSWord. Teach them how to communicate effectively, not how to use Powerpoint.
All of these examples indicate the difference between education and training. Though in most other skill areas even "training" is less about leaning the quirks of a specific tool set in a robotic way.
What everyone seems to forget here is that there is a training cost involved in using OSS stuff. Why? Well, in 99.9% of the cases, the existing staff is experienced in Windows and Office more than anything else. I don't care how easy you think Linux and StarOffice is, people will need to be retrained.
And they don't have to be retrained everytime Windows or Office changes version?
I wonder how long DVD region encoding would've lasted if it was the USofA that had to wait months for titles to be released (if at all)?
Actually in some cases years. Just not enough angry Futurama and Buffy fans in the US yet... (N.B. stakes, crossbows and swords would appear to be covered by the second ammendment...)
If You want a multi-region DVD player (any brand) in Finland, s/Finland/anywhere in the EU/ You go to any HiFi store and buy one. I would guess they sell multiregion players not just in HiFi stores, but in any consumer electronics store that sells DVD players at all.
Costs more? Oh yes, they could've sold me an unmodded player for some 100 less.
You didn't say how much you paid, most likely the R2 only one is discounted because hardly anyone would buy it otherwise. I assume that it wasn't a cheap one in the 150-200 euro range...
On the face of it it's of course different, protection of the cinema's and associated industries.
The fact these are not suffering in Region 1 where everything is NOT 6-12 months delayed is conveniently forgotten.
Actually region 1 customers can get to suffer too. But with television series rather than movies.
I think one of the motives behind the regional coding is target costing. The idea being that if Region A will buy 1000 DVD's at $9.99 and region D will buy 1000 DVD's at $15.99, you want to prevent region D from buying Region A DVD's at a substantial decrease.
In which case maybe the entire process of creating a DVD for region A should be carried out in region A, ditto for region D...
The cost of getting a DVD to market in Japan is much higher than it is in Florida. DVD companies want to prevent Japanese DVD buyers from skipping the normal channels.
What if the Japanese person wants the film in American English?
Except that it may take that long to subtitle, edit, and generally prepare the movie for foreign markets.
Depends how they actually do the production. (Subtitling is generally done by the host country.) Anyway given that English is the worlds second most common language a huge number of people (several times the entire US population) outside the US can reasonably understand a US produced movie even without subtitles. How do they cope with American Spanish and (Canadian French)???
Region coding does make sense with DVDs. You see, there's often a long delay before US movies are released in other countries.
It makes sense to the publisher, but only to them Intersstingly not all material produced in the US get's relased on region 1 DVD first. TV series can appear on DVD outside the US long before they are released in the US. e.g. on another thread recently US posters were complaining they they could only get S1 Buffy on region 1 DVD.
Movies cost a fortune, and the main income is still what flows through the box office. Now if a movie is released on DVD before it appears in theaters (and that happens very often), both movie theaters and studios would suffer.
There is nothing actually stopping a worldwide release of any movie. (Or for that matter making a "trial release" outside the US.)
Maybe this has already been said (and if it has, I apologize), but it's like having a law to keep you from breaking the law.
Which is rather redundant since anyone prepared to break the law generally dosn't care how many laws they break. Or rather they care about the law with the higest potential cost if they get caught.
Due to copyright laws that are unrealistic to enforce (but not necessarily bad laws), they need to pass a second law to help enforce the first one.
If the new law is excessivly broad to the point where it starts to look like considering peopkle guilty until proven innocent that it won't be obeyed anyway.
I'm not sure of the other countries, but in Australia, we have no rights given to us in the Constitution. Therefore, we have hundreds of civil groups, telling us *why* it's important the government does not take away our freedom. On the other hand, in America, those groups simply claim that the government can't do that (whatever that may be) because of the Constitution - hence some people simply say "oh well, doesn't seem too important anyway".
What will protect people's rights is people prepared to voice them and defend them. A written consitution is only good for describing what those rights might include. Without something to back it up it's just ink on paper, give any government long enough (200 odd years is more than enough) and they can find sufficent loopholes in any piece of text. There is also the problem of a written constitution taking on the role of a "sacred text", where people can simply quote the words, but fail to understand the meaning.
In the lead up to the last election the Government tried to pass a law that would allow the defense forces to force a boat out of Australian waters at the discretion of the captiain of the defense vessel giving him/her no responsibility if the boat then sank or whatever. This was part of the government's 'get tough on refugees' campaign (which got them elected). Due to their incompetence the bill was so vague that it basically gave the defence the right to force an Australian vessel containing Australian citizens out of Australian waters. It was the most rushed through bill in Australian history, but the opposition at least had their eyes open and refused to pass it in the senate.
Maybe maybe if had passed Australia would have ended up with a one ship navy, consisting of the ship best at sinking other Australian warships:)?
Of course, it would be hideously impractical to use a punchcard as an ID card. They're just not durable enough to carry around in your walled and still last any length of time.
I recall a library system which used punched cards (late 1970's). The solution was to simply make the cards out of plastic. No reason you couldn't use credit sized plastic or even laminated card...
You know what the best type of voting system is?
Those sheets of paper where you connect the arrow for the candidate of your choice.
Most parts of the world use a system like this. Though in some places it's common for the ballot paper to have pictures of the candidates. Even the illiterate can recognise a picture and place some sort of marking adjacent to it.
Its non mechanical, the machines to read them are fast, very very accurate, they can be audited, there is virtually no room for physical failure (i suppose your pen could run out of ink,
Hence a soft pencil is typically used. Which is less likely to fail and is obvious when it need sharpening.
So if the McAfee contract clause is illegal everyone using their software (within the juristiction of the court) is no longer legally entitled to use it, and McAfee owes them all their money back?
Unless there is applicable law granting the right to use software. Which, IIRC, is the case in the US.
In most jurisdictions, any illegal clause throws out the entire contract unless specifically excluded by the judge.
Or the contract contains a clause to cover that situation and that clause is legal. It is usually perfectly legitimate for a contract to contain "metaclauses" which cover how the contract can be ended or procedures for changing it.
First Amendment only disallows the GOVERNMENT from restricting your right to free speech.
The first ammendment disallows the US federal government from passing laws which restrict free speach. Whoever might end up doing the restricting. It's scope is defined by the effect of such statutes, rather than their intent or even wording.
It has nothing to do with you agreeing to a contract.
Contracts are governed by laws. If the part of a contract restricting free speach relys upon a statute passed by the US congress then that statute is in violation of the US constitution. If it relys on case law or statute law originating from somewhere else (e.g. a state legislature) then there is no issue (on 1st ammendment grounds.) If there is statute or case law forbidding a term or type of term in a contract then it is void though...
What if you are not the OWNER of the machine, just someone that say USES a version of their software ON A PUBLIC computer, say at The Library or CompUSA
What about a far more likely situation the owner of a machine is a corporate entity (or a branch of government, etc) which is used by an employee?
Oxdung. It's the COURTS that do. They are part of the JUDICIARY branch of the State, not of the legislative (the government - national/legislative assembly - senate) nor executive (the president - governor - chancellor). It's really tiring to see uneducated people call everything that comes from the State as being from the "government"
Judiciary is a function of government. Which may or may not be separate from other government functions. With the US federal government even though the judiciary, executive and legislature were intended to be separate the way the two dominant political parties work renders that a nonsense in practice.
Um I think that McAfee can do what it pleases for the most part with its EULA.
That isn't the issue, the actual issue is if what they put in their EULA is binding on any other entity...
Free speach is not garanteed out side of the government. The first admendment states that congress is the one who can not make laws aginst free speach.
Actually it's a little broader in that it disallows laws which restrict free speach, even if that is simply a side effect of the law.
Slashdot Mirror
In a government environment, how many secretaries do you know that play around with the settings in Windows?? How many know how to change screen resolutions? Most of these functions are locked out anyway!
Indeed there is a whole set of third party addons specifically to deal with the "enduser is the admin" misfeature of Windows.
In a corporate environment, things are controlled and setup via the sys admins. Setting up a user with KDE (or whatever), office package, and they should have little trouble using the system.
One big problem with a lot of more recent GUI apps, especially ports from Windows or attempts to clone Windows apps is that centralised configuration is ignored.
Traditional unix apps would have a central config file and per user configs, some of the more recent stuff only has per user. Even worst expecting end users to set things up, everything from web proxies to huge forms which Star Office comes up with...
I can't think of one secretary that knows what a command line is,
But it's fine for Windows to puke up CPU registers and stack frames when programs crash at them?
Or they should have to know about such things as defragmenting disks
There are plenty of ways in which Windows really is "too technical" for the average user.
Here in Colorado, we have a statute prohibiting such designation of suppliers. However, that statute is so damn vague that it might as well not exist. It prohibits a supply officer from telling a contractor to "buy the carburators from my cousin's shop over in Littleton." It MIGHT prohibit a municipality from signing on to the HUD-Smith and Wesson deal of a few years ago. It doesn't prohibit our supply officer from requiring W2K because "that's the only option that most of us have any clue how to use."
It's quite possible the statute, if actually applied, would forbid buying Microsoft. But the people charged with enforcement just arn't interested when it comes to software.
Point 1: For 95% of what the average person does, Windows is interchangeable with GNOME, Office is interchangeable with StarOffice, and the Big Blue 'E' can be replaced with Mozilla. They're not "used to Windows," per se.
Windows (and MS Office) is something of a "moving target" anyway when it comes to the end user. How can these supposedly stupid people possibly cope. Maybe it's more that it is "cool" to claim that "computers are hard". (In terms of actual brain power the complicated part of a computer is actually operating the user interface anyway.)
A lot of the time when people are actually using Windows it involves things such as defragmenting disks, which an end user shouldn't really need to be bothered with in the first place....
A specious lie if I ever heard one. Has everyone lost their short term memories? Think back just a mere ten years ago. All the schools were teaching Lotus-123 and Wordperfect. I actually know someone that got a certificate in Wordperfect! Another has an AA in DOS!!! To assume that the applications of the future will be identical to the ones used today is ludicrous. Using that premise to educate students is irresponsible.
Especially when some of the students used as pawns in this kind of argument are aged 5 rather than 20.
If you want to prepare students for the real world, teach them the basics. Teach them how to software engineering, not how to use Java or C++. Teach them how to create business documents, not how to use MSWord. Teach them how to communicate effectively, not how to use Powerpoint.
All of these examples indicate the difference between education and training. Though in most other skill areas even "training" is less about leaning the quirks of a specific tool set in a robotic way.
What everyone seems to forget here is that there is a training cost involved in using OSS stuff. Why? Well, in 99.9% of the cases, the existing staff is experienced in Windows and Office more than anything else. I don't care how easy you think Linux and StarOffice is, people will need to be retrained.
And they don't have to be retrained everytime Windows or Office changes version?
I wonder how long DVD region encoding would've lasted if it was the USofA that had to wait months for titles to be released (if at all)?
Actually in some cases years. Just not enough angry Futurama and Buffy fans in the US yet... (N.B. stakes, crossbows and swords would appear to be covered by the second ammendment...)
If You want a multi-region DVD player (any brand) in Finland, s/Finland/anywhere in the EU/ You go to any HiFi store and buy one. I would guess they sell multiregion players not just in HiFi stores, but in any consumer electronics store that sells DVD players at all.
Costs more? Oh yes, they could've sold me an unmodded player for some 100 less.
You didn't say how much you paid, most likely the R2 only one is discounted because hardly anyone would buy it otherwise. I assume that it wasn't a cheap one in the 150-200 euro range...
On the face of it it's of course different, protection of the cinema's and associated industries.
The fact these are not suffering in Region 1 where everything is NOT 6-12 months delayed is conveniently forgotten.
Actually region 1 customers can get to suffer too. But with television series rather than movies.
I think one of the motives behind the regional coding is target costing. The idea being that if Region A will buy 1000 DVD's at $9.99 and region D will buy 1000 DVD's at $15.99, you want to prevent region D from buying Region A DVD's at a substantial decrease.
In which case maybe the entire process of creating a DVD for region A should be carried out in region A, ditto for region D...
The cost of getting a DVD to market in Japan is much higher than it is in Florida. DVD companies want to prevent Japanese DVD buyers from skipping the normal channels.
What if the Japanese person wants the film in American English?
Except that it may take that long to subtitle, edit, and generally prepare the movie for foreign markets.
Depends how they actually do the production. (Subtitling is generally done by the host country.) Anyway given that English is the worlds second most common language a huge number of people (several times the entire US population) outside the US can reasonably understand a US produced movie even without subtitles.
How do they cope with American Spanish and (Canadian French)???
Region coding does make sense with DVDs. You see, there's often a long delay before US movies are released in other countries.
It makes sense to the publisher, but only to them
Intersstingly not all material produced in the US get's relased on region 1 DVD first. TV series can appear on DVD outside the US long before they are released in the US. e.g. on another thread recently US posters were complaining they they could only get S1 Buffy on region 1 DVD.
Movies cost a fortune, and the main income is still what flows through the box office. Now if a movie is released on DVD before it appears in theaters (and that happens very often), both movie theaters and studios would suffer.
There is nothing actually stopping a worldwide release of any movie. (Or for that matter making a "trial release" outside the US.)
Maybe this has already been said (and if it has, I apologize), but it's like having a law to keep you from breaking the law.
Which is rather redundant since anyone prepared to break the law generally dosn't care how many laws they break. Or rather they care about the law with the higest potential cost if they get caught.
Due to copyright laws that are unrealistic to enforce (but not necessarily bad laws), they need to pass a second law to help enforce the first one.
If the new law is excessivly broad to the point where it starts to look like considering peopkle guilty until proven innocent that it won't be obeyed anyway.
I'm not sure of the other countries, but in Australia, we have no rights given to us in the Constitution. Therefore, we have hundreds of civil groups, telling us *why* it's important the government does not take away our freedom. On the other hand, in America, those groups simply claim that the government can't do that (whatever that may be) because of the Constitution - hence some people simply say "oh well, doesn't seem too important anyway".
What will protect people's rights is people prepared to voice them and defend them. A written consitution is only good for describing what those rights might include. Without something to back it up it's just ink on paper, give any government long enough (200 odd years is more than enough) and they can find sufficent loopholes in any piece of text.
There is also the problem of a written constitution taking on the role of a "sacred text", where people can simply quote the words, but fail to understand the meaning.
In the lead up to the last election the Government tried to pass a law that would allow the defense forces to force a boat out of Australian waters at the discretion of the captiain of the defense vessel giving him/her no responsibility if the boat then sank or whatever. This was part of the government's 'get tough on refugees' campaign (which got them elected). Due to their incompetence the bill was so vague that it basically gave the defence the right to force an Australian vessel containing Australian citizens out of Australian waters. It was the most rushed through bill in Australian history, but the opposition at least had their eyes open and refused to pass it in the senate.
:)?
Maybe maybe if had passed Australia would have ended up with a one ship navy, consisting of the ship best at sinking other Australian warships
Yup, kind of like when you 'dial' a phone number. When was the last time you stuck your finger in a rotary dial?
The use of obsolete terms is commented upon a few times in 2001 and the subsequent books.
Of course, it would be hideously impractical to use a punchcard as an ID card. They're just not durable enough to carry around in your walled and still last any length of time.
I recall a library system which used punched cards (late 1970's). The solution was to simply make the cards out of plastic. No reason you couldn't use credit sized plastic or even laminated card...
I have wondered for over 20 years where the form factor of the Hollerith card came from. Thanks!!
Hollerith cards are also where 80 column displays and printers derive from
You know what the best type of voting system is?
Those sheets of paper where you connect the arrow for the candidate of your choice.
Most parts of the world use a system like this. Though in some places it's common for the ballot paper to have pictures of the candidates. Even the illiterate can recognise a picture and place some sort of marking adjacent to it.
Its non mechanical, the machines to read them are fast, very very accurate, they can be audited, there is virtually no room for physical failure (i suppose your pen could run out of ink,
Hence a soft pencil is typically used. Which is less likely to fail and is obvious when it need sharpening.
So if the McAfee contract clause is illegal everyone using their software (within the juristiction of the court) is no longer legally entitled to use it, and McAfee owes them all their money back?
Unless there is applicable law granting the right to use software. Which, IIRC, is the case in the US.
In most jurisdictions, any illegal clause throws out the entire contract unless specifically excluded by the judge.
Or the contract contains a clause to cover that situation and that clause is legal.
It is usually perfectly legitimate for a contract to contain "metaclauses" which cover how the contract can be ended or procedures for changing it.
First Amendment only disallows the GOVERNMENT from restricting your right to free speech.
The first ammendment disallows the US federal government from passing laws which restrict free speach. Whoever might end up doing the restricting. It's scope is defined by the effect of such statutes, rather than their intent or even wording.
It has nothing to do with you agreeing to a contract.
Contracts are governed by laws. If the part of a contract restricting free speach relys upon a statute passed by the US congress then that statute is in violation of the US constitution. If it relys on case law or statute law originating from somewhere else (e.g. a state legislature) then there is no issue (on 1st ammendment grounds.)
If there is statute or case law forbidding a term or type of term in a contract then it is void though...
What if you are not the OWNER of the machine, just someone that say USES a version of their software ON A PUBLIC computer, say at The Library or CompUSA
What about a far more likely situation the owner of a machine is a corporate entity (or a branch of government, etc) which is used by an employee?
Oxdung. It's the COURTS that do. They are part of the JUDICIARY branch of the State, not of the legislative (the government - national/legislative assembly - senate) nor executive (the president - governor - chancellor).
It's really tiring to see uneducated people call everything that comes from the State as being from the "government"
Judiciary is a function of government. Which may or may not be separate from other government functions.
With the US federal government even though the judiciary, executive and legislature were intended to be separate the way the two dominant political parties work renders that a nonsense in practice.
Um I think that McAfee can do what it pleases for the most part with its EULA.
That isn't the issue, the actual issue is if what they put in their EULA is binding on any other entity...
Free speach is not garanteed out side of the government. The first admendment states that congress is the one who can not make laws aginst free speach.
Actually it's a little broader in that it disallows laws which restrict free speach, even if that is simply a side effect of the law.