I called qwest recently to set up an account. I was going to switch to their long distance (they have pretty good deals there even without ppp). I just wanted basic internet service, national, to use with my BeOS system (no AOL).
I got the same routine as most of you about needing windows 95, etc. So after trying to pin down whether or not windows was required vs whether it was supported, and after being told that I need to use their software, I decided to just get the damn stuff, run in in w95, and see what it did.
Then I asked how long it would take. Between 4-6 weeks.
Oh. Ok, I'll let you know. In the meantime I found a no-frills and no support isp at 7.50/month, pay by quarter (8.50 with web space).
Check-it: They lowered my price at the cost of support, and yet it was exactly what I wanted. I'm paying less for the exact service I want.
Because it was uber-cheap with no support, there are no modified clients or proprietary signons. Wow!
If I tell you that I'm not guaranteeing a particular function for anything (or even the entire program), then I have explicitly removed myself from any liability.
If some dummy were then to use that program and somehow be harmed by it, that would be their problem.
This will lead to companies that *could* guarantee their product. It would also lead to certification companies that could take on the liability as part of their business model.
Or the consumer could just suck it up and use the program anyway after deciding that they didn't want to pay for a certified version.
As for the Open Source vs Closed Source question, the same thing would apply. The author could explicitly say he is liable for his particular version, or after the software is produced it could be certified, where the certifying agency would take on the liability.
One thing they were afraid of was that users would be slipping in the newest and latest bug fix which could crash the machine. Er? And why could this not happen with a closed source model? Obviously, if the vendor was responsible for slipping in the new release, they'd be responsible (or the certifier). Unless they perhaps set rules, such as that the machine could only be upgraded when a patient wasn't on it. Then whoever did the upgrade would be liable.
I just don't see where Open Source would be a problem in any of these cases. Even if the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act doesn't pass, it should be implicitly obvious that there are no guarantees about the software, except those stated by contract.
Bill gates is gonna give 100 billion to various AIDS and poor type organizations.
He seems to have forgotten about the free market under which he has gained those billions. And he seems to have forgotten about the government patheticos who want to take his money/power away from him.
So instead of contributing to the various libertarian organizations out there (Think tanks like cato, or even the libertarian party, which have both defended his right to do business), he contributes his money to the politically correct liberal organizations, who are busy trying to take him down.
Why do I get the feeling that his wife is doing all of the contributing?
The worst part is that HIV causing AIDS is a sham, and most of his money will go to supporting the corrupt system that produced this whole situation.
Slashdot Mirror
I know that I had fears about this movie not meeting my standards. The trailer says, "Take a look, we are doing a great job, get in line now."
I'm salivating. And I'm ready to buy LOTR merchandise.
She would not have argued that they had some form of obligation.
Adobe Photoshop?
I called qwest recently to set up an account. I was going to switch to their long distance (they have pretty good deals there even without ppp). I just wanted basic internet service, national, to use with my BeOS system (no AOL).
I got the same routine as most of you about needing windows 95, etc. So after trying to pin down whether or not windows was required vs whether it was supported, and after being told that I need to use their software, I decided to just get the damn stuff, run in in w95, and see what it did.
Then I asked how long it would take. Between 4-6 weeks.
Oh. Ok, I'll let you know. In the meantime I found a no-frills and no support isp at 7.50/month, pay by quarter (8.50 with web space).
Check-it: They lowered my price at the cost of support, and yet it was exactly what I wanted. I'm paying less for the exact service I want.
Because it was uber-cheap with no support, there are no modified clients or proprietary signons. Wow!
Ger.
-- Kill microsoft to email me.
Awesome comment. A very nice way of putting it.
Ger.
This liability thing should be a non-issue.
If I tell you that I'm not guaranteeing a particular function for anything (or even the entire program), then I have explicitly removed myself from any liability.
If some dummy were then to use that program and somehow be harmed by it, that would be their problem.
This will lead to companies that *could* guarantee their product. It would also lead to certification companies that could take on the liability as part of their business model.
Or the consumer could just suck it up and use the program anyway after deciding that they didn't want to pay for a certified version.
As for the Open Source vs Closed Source question, the same thing would apply. The author could explicitly say he is liable for his particular version, or after the software is produced it could be certified, where the certifying agency would take on the liability.
One thing they were afraid of was that users would be slipping in the newest and latest bug fix which could crash the machine. Er? And why could this not happen with a closed source model? Obviously, if the vendor was responsible for slipping in the new release, they'd be responsible (or the certifier). Unless they perhaps set rules, such as that the machine could only be upgraded when a patient wasn't on it. Then whoever did the upgrade would be liable.
I just don't see where Open Source would be a problem in any of these cases. Even if the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act doesn't pass, it should be implicitly obvious that there are no guarantees about the software, except those stated by contract.
Ger
Bill gates is gonna give 100 billion to various
AIDS and poor type organizations.
He seems to have forgotten about the free market under which he has gained those billions. And he seems to have forgotten about the government patheticos who want to take his money/power away from him.
So instead of contributing to the various libertarian organizations out there (Think tanks like cato, or even the libertarian party, which have both defended his right to do business), he contributes his money to the politically correct liberal organizations, who are busy trying to take him down.
Why do I get the feeling that his wife is doing all of the contributing?
The worst part is that HIV causing AIDS is a sham, and most of his money will go to supporting the corrupt system that produced this whole situation.
AOL used to report figures that I guess must be
false. It used to report that I was connected
at 56000.
So perhaps AOL does (or used to do) some form of
rounding, perhaps to make the customer feel good.
Now 44000 is the max I get reported.
Ger.