"Also, as this is EA, chances are they're not going to realize that Firefox is a web browser and then wonder when their statistics show that half of their userbase doesn't surf the internet at all."
IE, Firefox... the IP stack is still sending out requests for port 80.
"The point of the article is that next-gen games are already taking up 25 gigs so Sony's move to not use DVDs (like MS did) seems like it was a very smart on"
You're assuming that the games would be spanning 25 GB even if BluRay weren't used. From what I've seen, code (especially from game companies) is like a gas: it always fills up and takes the shape of the container it's in.
(And, running with that metaphor, with such a large container, the near-vacuum within will leave gamers gasping for true content.)
BluRays aren't needed until DVDs are filled. If BluRay were around fifteen years ago, "Sega BR" games would still have consumed the entire disk.
I'm sure they do. However, the question is ultimately whether or not that "some" can support a console to the point of making it mainstream. Because unless these 25 GB games are anthologies of PS or PS2 games stamped on one disk, that "some" is all that these new games are aiming for, the ones that can actually utilize that new content.
I have yet to see any reason to believe that the PlayStation 3 is aiming for anybody but the old NeoGeo market.
"I'd hope that you'd prefer a format that will upgrade with you should you ever choose to get a 7.1 audio system or HDTV."
It might be nice to have a console that can upgrade to the new a/v technologies, as you say. But unless and until I do get that 1080p television and 8-speaker sound system, all that I would be paying for is "potential." And at $600, it makes more financial sense to wait until after I get that television and sound system, rather than have a $600 paperweight that does little more for me than my $250 Wii; even the Wii's 480p capabilities will be wasted on me, but the price for this underutilized console will be more acceptable.
"just think of the irony in Slashdot posters arguing that we don't need a new technology."
I don't need to argue. My ATSC television speaks for itself.
Besides, if we were half as technophilic as you seem to think we are, we'd all be riding Segways.
"Harrison also responded to questioning about the claim that the capacity of Blu-Ray will be used simply to provide more high definition movie sequences, effectively filling the discs - and games - with non-interactive content. 'It's not just about graphics,' he said. 'It's about 7.1 audio, it's about speech, it's about having up to 1080p movies built into the game;"
Translation: "Are we filling the disks up with cutscenes? Damn right we are!"
Why else would reviewers be describing the SIXAXIS as "cheap" or "flimsy" if it's Sony's intent that the "player" never actually pick the thing up?
"The Mac OS world would be greatly strengthened if you have such an open and responsive situation of multiple hardware vendors making machines to run Mac software."
Making machines that run OSX or machines that claim to run OSX? Part of the reason why I don't touch OEM any more is the use of second-rate hardware and second-rate drivers that cause issues with the OS (be it Windows or Linux), and one of the main selling points of OSX (and the hardware it runs on) is "it just works."
"That list would then serve as a perfect permanent black list for all sysadmins who happen to think that people who sue spam lists might not be the kind of people who send worthwhile emails."
Then you are assuming that nobody could have a legitimate claim aginst Spamhaus, worthy of a lawsuit. Just because this case may not pass the smell test doesn't mean none will.
"Where was Linux back then? Where was Macintosh back then?"
Well, considering Microsoft's DOS was around for half a decade before the Mac and about a decade before Linux, I'd say "a twinkle in Jobs'/Linus' eye."
Microsoft wrote the OS for IBM machines. Those that wanted to make machines compatible with IBM came to Microsoft for their OEM licenses. There was no "battle" unless you want to go back to whatever bidding process IBM had for the PC's operating system in 1970-something.
"And don't even try to talk about how MS was limiting the options and "leveraging their monopoly" back then too."
Why not? Back then, you either got your MS-DOS OEM license from Microsoft or you don't get to say your computer is "IBM compatible." There is no such thing as a full, retail version of MS-DOS, of any version.
"Back then, and by back then I'm talking late 1980s to early 1990s, personal computers (PCs, the kind that people bought and used at home) were a niche market. You basically had two choices, Macintosh/Apple or IBM compatible/Microsoft."
And guess what: IBM (with their Microsoft-written OS) had a market monopoly 20 years ago. Microsoft can only dream of the kind of monopoly IBM had on the computing market (desktop or otherwise), and owe their current status to IBM's domination of the industry. If you were making computers and weren't IBM, you either made sure your machines used the same hardware (Intel) and ran the same software (Microsoft) as IBM did, or you did what you could with a fringe market (Apple).
From the moment in the 1970's when IBM decided to convert one of their smart terminals into a stand-alone desktop system, there has never been anything resembling a "free market" as you envision for the operating system market.
"There were alternatives like OS/2, but they never took off."
OS/2 was a joint IBM/Microsoft venture! The reason OS/2 "never took off" is because it got forked just like DOS when the two split (DOS 6.x and OS/2 2.x), which came about when Microsoft (leveraging their control and knowledge of MS-DOS) made a mint with Windows 3.x (which, "for some unknown reason," didn't run under competitors like DR-DOS). IBM called their parts of the code "OS/2 Warp," and Microsoft called theirs "Windows NT."
"There were alternatives like Netware, but they dropped the ball"
Novell NetWare is a NOS, not an OS. Microsoft's entry into the NOS market was Lan Manager, running on Microsoft's OS/2, two ideas they combined in the first version of NT (3.1).
"The monopoly came about because the Microsoft software was "good enough" to get the job done and "easy enough" to use."
It was "good enough" and "easy enough" insofar as whether or not to purchase something beyond that which the OEM installed on the system. NetWare didn't just have to do a better job of networking than NT, it had to do a better job than NT in spite of the customers already having NT. The options were never NetWare vs. NT, it was NT alone vs. NT with NetWare.
"But even if you do run a non-MS server backend, odds are there is a Windows compliant client that talks to the backend."
As I have been saying ad nauseam, the clients are running MS becuase you cannot buy a client with anything other than Windows pre-installed.
"I can say with certainty that if it made financial sense for Dell and HP to offer Linux, they would."
Nice qualifier. Microsoft's anticompetitive volume OEM licensing practices ensure that it will never make "financial sense" to offer customers a choice. If a computer manufacturer offered a choice of Windows or any other operating system, the cost of their Windows licenses would go up, making what Windows boxes they do sell non-competitive against those manufacturers who offer Windows alone. Microsoft's monopoly power in the operating system market puts all computer manufacturers into a prisoner's dilemma; if they don't all agree to offer alternatives to Microsoft, everybody who offers alternatives loses out big-time.
"1) Voting districts should be set up based only on population counts, such that each district has a minimum circumference. (No Jerrymandering.)"
Define "minimum circumference" when population density is heterogeneous.
"2) Voter registration must be free, simple, and easily available to all citizens."
Free is required by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, "simple" and "easily available," however, are as open to interpretation as "minimum circumference."
"4) Election day should be a paid holiday, insuring that everyone can get to the polls."
How will wheelchair-bound citizens make it to the polling place when the bus driver is off because of your election day holiday? You can never have everybody take the day off, you'll always end up "disenfranchising" somebody. This is why the polls are open all day instead, covering everybody no matter their work schedule.
"5) If votes cast differ substantially from independent polls that are statistically valid, an audit should be performed."
Define "independent" and "statistically valid."
"6) Make vote tampering punishable by twenty years in prison and permanent disenfranchisement."
Eighth Amendment.
"7) Public financing of all elections. "
Convince people to willingly part with their money to pay for Mark Foley's campaign.
"That means no foreign money in national elections,"
Already done in 1974 by the Federal Election Campaign Act.
"and no out-of-state money in statewide elections"
Find a state where this isn't true.
In both cases, however, in the age of corporations with a global reach, define "foreign" or "out-of-state." What if Toyota builds a car factory in your state?
Just about all of your suggestions are already being implemented, often with the exact language you've used yourself. A century of knee-jerk populism with little more behind it than feel-good language has gotten us where we are now, and I have a hard time seeing how more of the same could make things better. Interestingly, voter turnout was much higher before the Populist movement got moving.
Perhaps instead we should be looking to roll back some of our election laws, deciding exactly what was a problem that needed fixing (e. g. Jim Crow) and what instead was a solution in search of a problem (e. g. drawing random lines for voting districts instead of allotting representatives to counties or vice versa, based on population). Then we should start looking for new solutions (if needed).
"The US is a Federalist nation, built around the idea that the national government should have control over only what is absolutely necessary, and that the state should handle the rest."
So is Canada. And Australia, for that matter. Not to mention Switzerland, Argentina, etc.
Nowadays, I'd go so far to say that Canada is doing a better job at being federal than the United States is. The decision in Gonzales v. Raich was anything but federal in nature, and it's hard to see a Canadian federal court taking such a stance against a provincial government, even if it isn't Ontario.
"So the states each have the right to electoral votes in choosing the President,"
You got one right.
"but how the states choose their representatives and decide electoral votes before passing them on to Congress is up to the states."
But the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations. Article I, section 4. Federalist #59 has the explanation.
"behind not controlling American elections at the National Level?"
For state and local elections? The Ninth and Tenth Amendments (i. e. the federal constitution only touches on federal elections).
For presidential elections? Article II, Section 1 (emphasis mine): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct... "
For Congress? Actually, they could if they wanted to. Article I, Section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations(.)"
Part of why they don't is tradition, part of it is that they only have control over Congressional elections and not the rest of the elections that may be on the ballot (most states combine federal and state ballots, but even if state offices are decided on odd years, there's still the presidential election), and part of it is probably that the two major parties can take advantage of the flaws of the current system. So all Congress has done with respect to getting involved in electoral matters is declaring that House members must come from single-member districts.
"Computer manufacturers are motivated to provide a product customers want to buy."
People want the interwebs, and maybe some word processing. Other than the Cult of Bill, Microsoft doesn't have the name recognition among non-geeks they think they have and my mother (at least) uses "Windows" as a generic term for OS rather than a Microsoft-branded product.
We're talking about people who have difficulty discerning between the CPU and the case.
"The number of people that would buy machines with some flavor of Linux is very small."
Untested hypothesis. As I mentioned before, you can't back up that claim until manufacturers actucally give that option to the consumers. Why they don't is covered by #1 in my OL.
"True enough but you are forgetting that most people are getting what they want."
They want Yahoo and AIM and the rest of the interwebs.
"Microsoft isn't a monopoly though. There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from using any number of other x86 operating systems on their PC. Don't like Windows? Fine, install Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, etc. Hell, buy a Mac and use MacOS X."
We've all been over this before...
Computer manfuacturers are bent over a barrel to include an OEM Windows install on every machine they sell. The only realistic way for a user to get a computer without Windows is to build one themself.
Since everybody is already getting a copy of Windows, what incentinve is there for the end user to try an alternative OS? Better yet, even if they do, they've already paid for Windows and Microsoft still has their money and their "installed base" numbers
People write software for the dominant OS rather than invest even more money into R&D for multiple OSes. Meaning that most applications (read "games") out there are designed for Windows
The 95% of end users out there who don't build their own PCs from scratch are left with choosing to continue running the Windows their machine came with, or to take on the Sisyphusean challenge of working to install their own OS and tailoring their software shopping (if not their life in general) around that OS instead of simply using what they already paid for.
"You know why people use Microsoft Windows? Because they like it."
Microsoft will never allow anybody to test that hypothesis in any meaningful way. You can't say that with any certainty until Dell and HP start saying "Would you like Vista or Fedora with your new computer?"
And how does Microsoft do this? By abusing their monopoly power.
"Microsoft said it would configure Vista to let third-party anti-virus and other security software makers bypass 'PatchGuard,' a feature in 64-bit versions of Windows Vista designed to bar access to the Windows kernel."
Can't say I'm particularly happy about this (breaking security in the name of security? Could even OneCare touch the kernel before this?), but this makes me wonder if they'll actually bend to user pressure to change the licensing terms?
Of course, the users don't have a legal team on speed-dial or other things to leverage against Microsoft. And there's no reason to believe that Vista will do anything but sell like hotcakes (after all, there are more reasons to go from XP to Vista than there were to go from 2k to XP), so there won't be any of the user backlash that most Slashdotters pretend they see in the future.
So, when all is said and done, I've got 14 months to figure out how I'm going to migrate to Linux before XP's end-of-life. It's a good thing I do most of my gaming on consoles...
Everybody's stressing over the phrase "one time." That phrase has been used before, for example the XP EULA referenced in one of TFAs (emphasis mine):
Internal. You may move the Product to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Product from the former Workstation Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to another end user.
The very same phrase, and, in this usage, it seems to be emphasizing that, after you transfer your user rights to somebody else, you retain no rights yourself; as if, without the words "one time," somebody could argue "Person A transferred to Person B, then Person A transferred to Person C..." and suddenly Warez sites are legit.
Now, with regards to Vista, we have "reassign the license to another device one time." Now, considering that the EULA now requires that "(b)efore you use the software under a license, you must assign that license to one device (physical hardware system)," the EULA now considers the way the install is tied to a particular machine similar to the way it treats the way it is tied to a particular person. So they are using the same language for hardware as they have always used for people.
All I'm seeing here is a new way of saying "you have to uninstall from the old machine before installing on a new one" worded in a different way from they way they used to. The language (to me, at least) seems to not do anything more than to ensure that all rights a particular computer might have to the install must be transferred (including the right of transfer itself).
Otherwise, you end up with a logical inconsistency; if, by agreeing with the EULA, you can only change hardware once, what happens when you sell the license to somebody else? That new user, by agreeing to the EULA, gets all the rights you had at first purchase, including that once-only hardware transfer. So, if you give it to somebody else, and you get it back (or simply sell it to yourself for $0.01), you get your "hardware transfer" counter reset back to zero and the once-only transfer rule becomes unenforcable.
As for other things people seem to be screaming about, were the features that are denied to home flavors of Vista allowed in the home flavor of XP? I see some noise like "ZOMG! No Remote Desktop!" here and there...
"I suggest that your product, no matter how you may percieve it has NEVER been a favorite."
eno2001, may I introduce you to the states of Alaska and Hawaii? AK and HI, this is eno2001.
Just becuase you and six people you know don't like the stuff doesn't mean there aren't enough people out there that keep buying the stuff for it to continue to be quite profitable. Why would Hormel care about their trademark so much if their food product wasn't profitable enough to justify the expense of these legal actions? Do you see Circuit City going after the DivX people much any more?
The entire point of this recent action by Hormel in the EU was to prevent somebody from trademarking terms like "Spamhaus" or "Spam Assassin" or any other use of the term "Spam" in the trademarked name of a U(C)E-related software or service. As they've stated, Hormel has no real problem with the use of the term "spam" as slang, but they have a problem with having to compete with another trademarked definition of the term. Especially when the canned meat product is (ZOMG1) still selling well.
The parent wanted an offline solution. This is it. The only way to automate the process (theoretically as well as currently) is to have the target machine search and manage patching itself, which is what Linux distros as well as the various offerings from Microsoft do.
If you want an airgap between the machine and the internet until it is completely patched, be prepared to act as its go-between.
"Until Microsoft provides a way to update from a fresh install to the latest patched version offline, I consider my Windows box to be already compromised."
Better yet, you can download these patches and slipstream them into the installation folder, then all you need is a way to make a CD bootable or to make some boot floppies and your fresh install will already be the latest patched version. Sort by release date, go back to the latest service pack, and download it and newer patches.
This has only been the way things have worked since Windows 2000, i. e. for the last six years. Might want to upgrade from NT 4 if you want to stay on top of your Windows bashing.
"With a worldwide launch date scheduled for Christmas 2007"
So we have to wait a year until we can get the "latest and greatest" in picture technology, hm? How will audiophiles looking for something to plug their PS3 or their X360 into possibly pass their time until then?
"According to Spamhaus, more than 650 million Internet users - including those at the White House, the U.S. Army and the European Parliament - benefit from Spamhaus' 'blacklist' of spammers"
If Congress is on that list, this will allow them to see just how well their (U) CAN SPAM Act works out.
Slashdot Mirror
"But, your character is moving through a dimly lit room where you can't see anything at 1080p!!"
You are likely to be eaten by a pre-rendered grue.
Maybe you should use your real-time weapon-changing ability to whip out a flashlight. Or tape one to your gun, etc.
So... Microsoft is buying out Phantom?
"Also, as this is EA, chances are they're not going to realize that Firefox is a web browser and then wonder when their statistics show that half of their userbase doesn't surf the internet at all."
IE, Firefox... the IP stack is still sending out requests for port 80.
"The point of the article is that next-gen games are already taking up 25 gigs so Sony's move to not use DVDs (like MS did) seems like it was a very smart on"
You're assuming that the games would be spanning 25 GB even if BluRay weren't used. From what I've seen, code (especially from game companies) is like a gas: it always fills up and takes the shape of the container it's in.
(And, running with that metaphor, with such a large container, the near-vacuum within will leave gamers gasping for true content.)
BluRays aren't needed until DVDs are filled. If BluRay were around fifteen years ago, "Sega BR" games would still have consumed the entire disk.
"So you don't have a HDTV or the developer doesn't fill up the disk today, what about two years from now."
Two years? I've had my GameCube for over three and I still don't own a 480p television.
"Well, some of us do."
I'm sure they do. However, the question is ultimately whether or not that "some" can support a console to the point of making it mainstream. Because unless these 25 GB games are anthologies of PS or PS2 games stamped on one disk, that "some" is all that these new games are aiming for, the ones that can actually utilize that new content.
I have yet to see any reason to believe that the PlayStation 3 is aiming for anybody but the old NeoGeo market.
"I'd hope that you'd prefer a format that will upgrade with you should you ever choose to get a 7.1 audio system or HDTV."
It might be nice to have a console that can upgrade to the new a/v technologies, as you say. But unless and until I do get that 1080p television and 8-speaker sound system, all that I would be paying for is "potential." And at $600, it makes more financial sense to wait until after I get that television and sound system, rather than have a $600 paperweight that does little more for me than my $250 Wii; even the Wii's 480p capabilities will be wasted on me, but the price for this underutilized console will be more acceptable.
"just think of the irony in Slashdot posters arguing that we don't need a new technology."
I don't need to argue. My ATSC television speaks for itself.
Besides, if we were half as technophilic as you seem to think we are, we'd all be riding Segways.
"Harrison also responded to questioning about the claim that the capacity of Blu-Ray will be used simply to provide more high definition movie sequences, effectively filling the discs - and games - with non-interactive content. 'It's not just about graphics,' he said. 'It's about 7.1 audio, it's about speech, it's about having up to 1080p movies built into the game;"
Translation: "Are we filling the disks up with cutscenes? Damn right we are!"
Why else would reviewers be describing the SIXAXIS as "cheap" or "flimsy" if it's Sony's intent that the "player" never actually pick the thing up?
"The Mac OS world would be greatly strengthened if you have such an open and responsive situation of multiple hardware vendors making machines to run Mac software."
Making machines that run OSX or machines that claim to run OSX? Part of the reason why I don't touch OEM any more is the use of second-rate hardware and second-rate drivers that cause issues with the OS (be it Windows or Linux), and one of the main selling points of OSX (and the hardware it runs on) is "it just works."
"That list would then serve as a perfect permanent black list for all sysadmins who happen to think that people who sue spam lists might not be the kind of people who send worthwhile emails."
Then you are assuming that nobody could have a legitimate claim aginst Spamhaus, worthy of a lawsuit. Just because this case may not pass the smell test doesn't mean none will.
"Where was Linux back then? Where was Macintosh back then?"
Well, considering Microsoft's DOS was around for half a decade before the Mac and about a decade before Linux, I'd say "a twinkle in Jobs'/Linus' eye."
Microsoft wrote the OS for IBM machines. Those that wanted to make machines compatible with IBM came to Microsoft for their OEM licenses. There was no "battle" unless you want to go back to whatever bidding process IBM had for the PC's operating system in 1970-something.
"And don't even try to talk about how MS was limiting the options and "leveraging their monopoly" back then too."
Why not? Back then, you either got your MS-DOS OEM license from Microsoft or you don't get to say your computer is "IBM compatible." There is no such thing as a full, retail version of MS-DOS, of any version.
"Back then, and by back then I'm talking late 1980s to early 1990s, personal computers (PCs, the kind that people bought and used at home) were a niche market. You basically had two choices, Macintosh/Apple or IBM compatible/Microsoft."
And guess what: IBM (with their Microsoft-written OS) had a market monopoly 20 years ago. Microsoft can only dream of the kind of monopoly IBM had on the computing market (desktop or otherwise), and owe their current status to IBM's domination of the industry. If you were making computers and weren't IBM, you either made sure your machines used the same hardware (Intel) and ran the same software (Microsoft) as IBM did, or you did what you could with a fringe market (Apple).
From the moment in the 1970's when IBM decided to convert one of their smart terminals into a stand-alone desktop system, there has never been anything resembling a "free market" as you envision for the operating system market.
"There were alternatives like OS/2, but they never took off."
OS/2 was a joint IBM/Microsoft venture! The reason OS/2 "never took off" is because it got forked just like DOS when the two split (DOS 6.x and OS/2 2.x), which came about when Microsoft (leveraging their control and knowledge of MS-DOS) made a mint with Windows 3.x (which, "for some unknown reason," didn't run under competitors like DR-DOS). IBM called their parts of the code "OS/2 Warp," and Microsoft called theirs "Windows NT."
"There were alternatives like Netware, but they dropped the ball"
Novell NetWare is a NOS, not an OS. Microsoft's entry into the NOS market was Lan Manager, running on Microsoft's OS/2, two ideas they combined in the first version of NT (3.1).
"The monopoly came about because the Microsoft software was "good enough" to get the job done and "easy enough" to use."
It was "good enough" and "easy enough" insofar as whether or not to purchase something beyond that which the OEM installed on the system. NetWare didn't just have to do a better job of networking than NT, it had to do a better job than NT in spite of the customers already having NT. The options were never NetWare vs. NT, it was NT alone vs. NT with NetWare.
"But even if you do run a non-MS server backend, odds are there is a Windows compliant client that talks to the backend."
As I have been saying ad nauseam, the clients are running MS becuase you cannot buy a client with anything other than Windows pre-installed.
"I can say with certainty that if it made financial sense for Dell and HP to offer Linux, they would."
Nice qualifier. Microsoft's anticompetitive volume OEM licensing practices ensure that it will never make "financial sense" to offer customers a choice. If a computer manufacturer offered a choice of Windows or any other operating system, the cost of their Windows licenses would go up, making what Windows boxes they do sell non-competitive against those manufacturers who offer Windows alone. Microsoft's monopoly power in the operating system market puts all computer manufacturers into a prisoner's dilemma; if they don't all agree to offer alternatives to Microsoft, everybody who offers alternatives loses out big-time.
"1) Voting districts should be set up based only on population counts, such that each district has a minimum circumference. (No Jerrymandering.)"
Define "minimum circumference" when population density is heterogeneous.
"2) Voter registration must be free, simple, and easily available to all citizens."
Free is required by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, "simple" and "easily available," however, are as open to interpretation as "minimum circumference."
"4) Election day should be a paid holiday, insuring that everyone can get to the polls."
How will wheelchair-bound citizens make it to the polling place when the bus driver is off because of your election day holiday? You can never have everybody take the day off, you'll always end up "disenfranchising" somebody. This is why the polls are open all day instead, covering everybody no matter their work schedule.
"5) If votes cast differ substantially from independent polls that are statistically valid, an audit should be performed."
Define "independent" and "statistically valid."
"6) Make vote tampering punishable by twenty years in prison and permanent disenfranchisement."
Eighth Amendment.
"7) Public financing of all elections. "
Convince people to willingly part with their money to pay for Mark Foley's campaign.
"That means no foreign money in national elections,"
Already done in 1974 by the Federal Election Campaign Act.
"and no out-of-state money in statewide elections"
Find a state where this isn't true.
In both cases, however, in the age of corporations with a global reach, define "foreign" or "out-of-state." What if Toyota builds a car factory in your state?
Just about all of your suggestions are already being implemented, often with the exact language you've used yourself. A century of knee-jerk populism with little more behind it than feel-good language has gotten us where we are now, and I have a hard time seeing how more of the same could make things better. Interestingly, voter turnout was much higher before the Populist movement got moving.
Perhaps instead we should be looking to roll back some of our election laws, deciding exactly what was a problem that needed fixing (e. g. Jim Crow) and what instead was a solution in search of a problem (e. g. drawing random lines for voting districts instead of allotting representatives to counties or vice versa, based on population). Then we should start looking for new solutions (if needed).
You phail civics.
"The US is a Federalist nation, built around the idea that the national government should have control over only what is absolutely necessary, and that the state should handle the rest."
So is Canada. And Australia, for that matter. Not to mention Switzerland, Argentina, etc.
Nowadays, I'd go so far to say that Canada is doing a better job at being federal than the United States is. The decision in Gonzales v. Raich was anything but federal in nature, and it's hard to see a Canadian federal court taking such a stance against a provincial government, even if it isn't Ontario.
"So the states each have the right to electoral votes in choosing the President,"
You got one right.
"but how the states choose their representatives and decide electoral votes before passing them on to Congress is up to the states."
But the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations. Article I, section 4. Federalist #59 has the explanation.
Read me.
"behind not controlling American elections at the National Level?"
For state and local elections? The Ninth and Tenth Amendments (i. e. the federal constitution only touches on federal elections).
For presidential elections? Article II, Section 1 (emphasis mine): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct... "
For Congress? Actually, they could if they wanted to. Article I, Section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations(.)"
Part of why they don't is tradition, part of it is that they only have control over Congressional elections and not the rest of the elections that may be on the ballot (most states combine federal and state ballots, but even if state offices are decided on odd years, there's still the presidential election), and part of it is probably that the two major parties can take advantage of the flaws of the current system. So all Congress has done with respect to getting involved in electoral matters is declaring that House members must come from single-member districts.
"Computer manufacturers are motivated to provide a product customers want to buy."
People want the interwebs, and maybe some word processing. Other than the Cult of Bill, Microsoft doesn't have the name recognition among non-geeks they think they have and my mother (at least) uses "Windows" as a generic term for OS rather than a Microsoft-branded product.
We're talking about people who have difficulty discerning between the CPU and the case.
"The number of people that would buy machines with some flavor of Linux is very small."
Untested hypothesis. As I mentioned before, you can't back up that claim until manufacturers actucally give that option to the consumers. Why they don't is covered by #1 in my OL.
"True enough but you are forgetting that most people are getting what they want."
They want Yahoo and AIM and the rest of the interwebs.
We've all been over this before...
- Computer manfuacturers are bent over a barrel to include an OEM Windows install on every machine they sell. The only realistic way for a user to get a computer without Windows is to build one themself.
- Since everybody is already getting a copy of Windows, what incentinve is there for the end user to try an alternative OS? Better yet, even if they do, they've already paid for Windows and Microsoft still has their money and their "installed base" numbers
- People write software for the dominant OS rather than invest even more money into R&D for multiple OSes. Meaning that most applications (read "games") out there are designed for Windows
The 95% of end users out there who don't build their own PCs from scratch are left with choosing to continue running the Windows their machine came with, or to take on the Sisyphusean challenge of working to install their own OS and tailoring their software shopping (if not their life in general) around that OS instead of simply using what they already paid for."You know why people use Microsoft Windows? Because they like it."
Microsoft will never allow anybody to test that hypothesis in any meaningful way. You can't say that with any certainty until Dell and HP start saying "Would you like Vista or Fedora with your new computer?"
And how does Microsoft do this? By abusing their monopoly power.
"I personally don't want a crippled OS to accommodate third party security vendors."
But before this you were willing to spend money on a crippled OS to accommodate third party media vendors?
"Microsoft said it would configure Vista to let third-party anti-virus and other security software makers bypass 'PatchGuard,' a feature in 64-bit versions of Windows Vista designed to bar access to the Windows kernel."
Can't say I'm particularly happy about this (breaking security in the name of security? Could even OneCare touch the kernel before this?), but this makes me wonder if they'll actually bend to user pressure to change the licensing terms?
Of course, the users don't have a legal team on speed-dial or other things to leverage against Microsoft. And there's no reason to believe that Vista will do anything but sell like hotcakes (after all, there are more reasons to go from XP to Vista than there were to go from 2k to XP), so there won't be any of the user backlash that most Slashdotters pretend they see in the future.
So, when all is said and done, I've got 14 months to figure out how I'm going to migrate to Linux before XP's end-of-life. It's a good thing I do most of my gaming on consoles...
Everybody's stressing over the phrase "one time." That phrase has been used before, for example the XP EULA referenced in one of TFAs (emphasis mine):The very same phrase, and, in this usage, it seems to be emphasizing that, after you transfer your user rights to somebody else, you retain no rights yourself; as if, without the words "one time," somebody could argue "Person A transferred to Person B, then Person A transferred to Person C..." and suddenly Warez sites are legit.
Now, with regards to Vista, we have "reassign the license to another device one time." Now, considering that the EULA now requires that "(b)efore you use the software under a license, you must assign that license to one device (physical hardware system)," the EULA now considers the way the install is tied to a particular machine similar to the way it treats the way it is tied to a particular person. So they are using the same language for hardware as they have always used for people.
All I'm seeing here is a new way of saying "you have to uninstall from the old machine before installing on a new one" worded in a different way from they way they used to. The language (to me, at least) seems to not do anything more than to ensure that all rights a particular computer might have to the install must be transferred (including the right of transfer itself).
Otherwise, you end up with a logical inconsistency; if, by agreeing with the EULA, you can only change hardware once, what happens when you sell the license to somebody else? That new user, by agreeing to the EULA, gets all the rights you had at first purchase, including that once-only hardware transfer. So, if you give it to somebody else, and you get it back (or simply sell it to yourself for $0.01), you get your "hardware transfer" counter reset back to zero and the once-only transfer rule becomes unenforcable.
As for other things people seem to be screaming about, were the features that are denied to home flavors of Vista allowed in the home flavor of XP? I see some noise like "ZOMG! No Remote Desktop!" here and there...
"i.e. it is the thought behind the action that counts,"
Contact that is incidental for one person can be very profound for another.
"not just an imitation of it."
Never had the urge to wrap yourself up in a warm blanket even when you weren't cold?
"I suggest that your product, no matter how you may percieve it has NEVER been a favorite."
eno2001, may I introduce you to the states of Alaska and Hawaii? AK and HI, this is eno2001.
Just becuase you and six people you know don't like the stuff doesn't mean there aren't enough people out there that keep buying the stuff for it to continue to be quite profitable. Why would Hormel care about their trademark so much if their food product wasn't profitable enough to justify the expense of these legal actions? Do you see Circuit City going after the DivX people much any more?
The entire point of this recent action by Hormel in the EU was to prevent somebody from trademarking terms like "Spamhaus" or "Spam Assassin" or any other use of the term "Spam" in the trademarked name of a U(C)E-related software or service. As they've stated, Hormel has no real problem with the use of the term "spam" as slang, but they have a problem with having to compete with another trademarked definition of the term. Especially when the canned meat product is (ZOMG1) still selling well.
"Clients are the ones who decide whether or not to sue. "
Just following orders?
The parent wanted an offline solution. This is it. The only way to automate the process (theoretically as well as currently) is to have the target machine search and manage patching itself, which is what Linux distros as well as the various offerings from Microsoft do.
If you want an airgap between the machine and the internet until it is completely patched, be prepared to act as its go-between.
"Until Microsoft provides a way to update from a fresh install to the latest patched version offline, I consider my Windows box to be already compromised."
Like this?
Better yet, you can download these patches and slipstream them into the installation folder, then all you need is a way to make a CD bootable or to make some boot floppies and your fresh install will already be the latest patched version. Sort by release date, go back to the latest service pack, and download it and newer patches.
This has only been the way things have worked since Windows 2000, i. e. for the last six years. Might want to upgrade from NT 4 if you want to stay on top of your Windows bashing.
"With a worldwide launch date scheduled for Christmas 2007"
So we have to wait a year until we can get the "latest and greatest" in picture technology, hm? How will audiophiles looking for something to plug their PS3 or their X360 into possibly pass their time until then?
"According to Spamhaus, more than 650 million Internet users - including those at the White House, the U.S. Army and the European Parliament - benefit from Spamhaus' 'blacklist' of spammers"
If Congress is on that list, this will allow them to see just how well their (U) CAN SPAM Act works out.