Certainly neither appears in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution
True, but there are lots of other great parts of American government that also do not. If you mean that our nation's affiliation with theism was not part of the Founders' original intent, then point taken.
James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, November 20, 1861 (note, closer to the Declaration of Independence than to today):
Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.
You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954:
In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of reigious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.
That loony Eisenhower... what a crackpot. He said that in regards to adding "under God" to the Pledge.
Anyway, thanks for the history lesson. I didn't know how contemporary those devices were before, and you spurred some research, the fruits of which you see above. Thanks again.
Unfortunately, I think the same applies to the U.S. and christianity....
Well, I think you're an idiot. When did the US and Christianity start getting "entangled"? When IN GOD WE TRUST was on our nation's first currency, (and still appears there)? Was it when "under God" was written into the Pledge? My understanding of the current state of state and religion is that is is becoming less and less "entangled". Seems like we're not doing much better for it, either. If you think religion is the the opium of the people, then I've got a red book I'd love to sell you...
There's a difference between a legal monopoly and an illegal monopoly. AOL Time Warner isn't actively trying to make itself the ONLY news source.
That's because, unlike the computer software industry, the media business has clear-cut laws preventing any one media company from owning too many outlets in a given market, or more than one outlet of the same media in the same market. It's impossible to have a real illegal media monopoly, but given the diversity and breadth of AOL-TW's holdings, they are as close as we're going to get.
Microsoft is actively trying to make itself the only EVERYTHING
Do you realize what that makes you sound like? An anti-MS zealot freak. EVERYTHING? Are you serious? Even if MS controlled every single aspect of computing, that would still not be everything. Seriously, get outside once in a while.
Don't make comments when you don't accurately understand the difference between legal and illegal monopolies.
I don't remember seeing anything about legality in the post I responded to. Thanks for coming back with a bullshit know-it-all response, based on no fact, answering no questions asked, and insulting the poster, though.
So my software (8-Track) is no longer compatible with any of todays players (cassette, CD, whatever)..
8-tracks are a good analogy, except that you can do with the 8-track what you will, i.e., just tape it onto cassette, or go find an 8-track player to play your 8-tracks on. When these CDs become useless, they become really useless.
No, but if Honda simply had only two keys which opened up all their products--then it would be their fault.
Says you. Ever watch a locksmith make a key for your car? I have. There's one blank they use for every single make and model. Using a metal file (no high-tech spy mission tools required), a good locksmith can have a key that works your door, trunk and ignition in about 5 minutes. It doesn't matter what kind of car you have, they get "root".
Hummers (not sure about the new ones) actually have doors that come off. You can actually steal the whole door. With no tools.
All it takes is a box cutter to get into any Jeep with a soft top.
We, as consumers [in the US at least] - whether private or corporate - have the ability to sue for damages and that really can keep a company in line.
Along with creating thousands of "hot McDonald's coffee on the crotch"-type lawsuits.
If your credit card number is stolen from an on-line retailer [...] sue the fsck out of them.
I agree. But can the retailer then turn around and sue Microsoft? NT can be locked down pretty tight. If it shipped that tight be default, much of the feature set would be disabled. I can see why MS wouldn't want that, because it's confusing to users who don't need that much security.
A critical point, I think. Keep in mind that these security holes are not exactly akin to a lock with a pink sticker that says "This lock doesn't actually work". A lot of research and experimentation is necessary in order to exploit those security holes. Research and experimentation carried out by criminals. As much as I would love to see software companies held accountable for the generally terrible state of software quality industry-wide, I'm not sure it's fair to hold Microsoft responible for making possible the actions of a malicious hacker. Is it Honda's fault a slimjim opens the door of my Civic?
It costs under $1 each to manufacture CDs in quantity
True, but how much does it cost throughout the layers of middlemen? How much does the Camelot in the mall pay to rent the space each CD occupies? What about warehouse space? Returns? Overstock? Training sales staff? In-store displays and other POP (point-of-purchase) marketing materials? When you get into the business of moving atoms, you incur more costs than just the straight manufacture of the atoms. I'd bet $3-$4 of each CD purchase goes to costs associated with manufacture aand distribution of the physical parts involved. Of course, I'm just pulling that figure out of my ass, but hey, this is/., right?
Besides, what about bands that can't justify the quantities necessary to get on shelves? All-digital distribution insures that only the right amount of copies are made, one for each buyer and no more.
I mean, nobody [crutchfield.com] makes car stereos with MP3 playback.
You missed the point. Nobody makes car stereos with.nap playback. I use CDs full of MP3s in my car, house, and at work, but all of these devices will choke on.nap files. My point was that consumers wouldn't put up with paying for these.nap files, but they'd use them if they were free.
I agree. My argument is that the expectations of the average user are abysmal. What if the delivery van you mentioned only started 97% of the times you tried to start it the very first year you owned it. You'd be outraged. Exchange the van for software, and that 3% failure rate would be commendable. When the stated use of said software is to run your business, expectations should be higher than they are. If an employee only showed up almost all of the time, you'd fire them.
Does anyone know what the average consumer spends on CDs/mo.? I don't, but I'm willing to bet it's not $14.95. More like $5.95. If The Industry would stop worrying about people downloading 10GB of music for free (there's only 24hrs. in a day to listen to music anyway), and concentrated on the cost savings of completely eliminating distribution, it could make a fortune. Who cares if a user is hoarding music, if you don't actually have to pay anything to get it to them? Yeah, bandwidth, sure, but just throttle it, and buy it in bulk. I wouldn't mind waiting overnight to download 200+ songs!
Allow artists to tap into that $14.95/mo based on how often their song(s) is (are) downloaded.
I'll tell you who wants to pay for Napster... record companies! What if Napster was like it will be, proprietary format, unplayable in cars or disc players, but it was free?. I know, crazy, right? Look at it this way... with a music format this crippled, piracy using Napster is pretty much eliminated. I mean, who wants to download an illegal file that barely even works? If you like the song enough, you can go to the store and get the disc. Otherwise, you can't share, copy, or even play the thing without a lot of hassle.
Like radio (which is also a hassle to use as a piracy tool), record companies can vie for "airplay", but with a legal payola scheme. The Industry can use the New Napster to plug their albums, maybe only releasing selected singles, and pay for the privelege. Just like MTV, but with computers.
The hard-core music fan, or the mildly computer-savvy music fan is going to snort at a service like this, but Middle America might give it a shot (a la AOL). I mean, it's free, right? Napster, Inc. can charge the record co.'s per download of a given song (an "insertion" if you will, pun intended), and balance its books. Fans can try before they buy for free. Hooray, I win!
FLW did say that, but he never mass-produced anything. He also forced many people to furnish their homes, and even dress a certain way inside of them because it fit the form of the piece. If applied to mass-produced items, or commodities, the form-function rationale falls apart, because you're not allowed by business constraints to custom-make everything for everyone. In addition, if every object really did put function first, industry would establish what is the best way for everything to look, and then every object fitting that purpose would look that way. Useful, maybe, but not a lot of fun.
Ford bought Volvo, too, and now they're crap. Good point on Jag, though. The old joke used to be that one had to own two Jags, because one of them was always in the shop.
But I'm proud of it, AC. What does the second letter in that acronym stand for, anyway? I always forget, because of what an idiot I am.
What, never hear of backups?
Of course I have. I was just contending that the unreliability of modern software is unlike anything the world has ever seen. Of course, kidneys have backups, too, so maybe I was wrong.
You should try going to work for a real software company that has real customers.
Good idea. While I'm doing that, you should realize that you don't know that I don't already work for a real software company, or maybe even The Second Largest Corporation on Earth. I do, by the way. How's that CCS degree coming at whatever state college accepted you?
After bitching and screaming at your because your software doesn't work because their dipshit sys admin decided to install some POS shareware program that overwrote a bunch of system files, you try and see how ANY legislative body could justify holding software companies liable for bugs.
Legislative bodies don't hold anybody liable for anything, first off. Judicial bodies do. To answer the point you meant to put foward, though, how is it that programmers think that their work is so special that it can't be investigated by mere mortals? Doctors are held accountable for making mistakes with a system that no-one even knows the full extent of- the human body. Do you think putting a lawsuit against a software co. would really be that hard? Maybe I'm high on codeine syrup right now, but I still know that you're wrong. Peace out.
If you lose $50K and haven't kept backups, then you're surely guilty of contributory negligence.
So, you're saying that the consumer must buy a product that claims to work, and then make copies of all data because they expect it to fail? That doesn't seem right to me. The software industry has grown in importance to the realm of automotive or even medical equipment, yet it has no real "safety" regulations or quality checks. As soon as the first software manu gets sued because a bug killed a kid, this will all change, and for the better.
Programming for some is a hobby. I can build a car myself, but will it pass inspection? Probably not, and therefore wouldn't be legal to drive on the street. There are no checks in place to keep development shops from releasing whatever they want and claiming it's "street legal" or whatever.
Who is breaking the law here, the person lawfully using the content, in the privacy of his home, or the neighbor listening in on it?
If you're asking me, neither. The current business model of creating content once, then minting currency by charging fees to view/broadcast/repurpose it ad infinitum is crap. Of course, anything else would require content providers to defend their IP with content worth paying for instead of lawyers.
Re:Soon to be seen in a grocery-store parking lot.
on
The Ultimate S.U.V.
·
· Score: 2
It's illegal in most countries to own extremely high-powered broadcast equipment in certain (like FM) bands. This is so that London has to buy transponders in France in order to have it's content broadcast there. That way, the French can regulate British content in France. This analogy flies out the window when you realize that it only takes a NIC to broadcast worldwide instantly.
Of course, we have real user boundaries, so the damage would be limited.
Limited, how? Most viruses don't try to reformat drives or get r00t. Is it not within the average Linux/UNIX user's power to send an email, or create/modify a file? That's all that's needed to spread the modern virus. Don't kid yourself that a Linux virus can't do damage. Most Outlook users aren't logged in as Administrator either, yet those viruses still did real damage, in terms of bandwidth and email noise.
but let's face facts people, huge corporations aren't going to give some little-known format a try in their mass-market products just for kicks.
Especially since it offers no "strategic business synergies". Whenever a manu pairs up with a software company like real, Apple or Microsoft, they get more than just a codec, they get a partner. As time has shown us, being partnered with the OSS community doesn't offer the same business advantages, since the OSS community doesn't actually have any, eh, money.
Well, in order to have a law using age restrictions as a guideline, an age at which to lift (or to begin imposing) those restrictions has to be established. Since it's impossible to allow children into an X-rated movie on a case-by-case basis, the age of majority is used. That age (18 in the 'states) is used for a lot of age-restricted legislation, like cigarette smoking. It may seem arbitrary, but it's time-tested, and working OK.
I'm wth you on the old-enough-to-die-not-old-enough-to-drink point, but any age limit is not an arbitrary restriction. The age itself may seem arbitrary, but the idea of using age as a limiting factor is not.
I think, perhaps, it is you who should think outside your own world and realize that this whole world doesn't exist to insure that you have well-adjusted offspring.
Two problems with that:
Contrary to many Weekly World News (an American tabloid) stories, it's impossible to be born with children already. That means I have lived in the world of the childless.
OK, then what's more important, as a species, than well-adjusted offspring? Video games? Party tunes? Light beer? Nah. Like it or not, having good kids is still the best thing you can do for society without curing something.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly neither appears in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution
True, but there are lots of other great parts of American government that also do not. If you mean that our nation's affiliation with theism was not part of the Founders' original intent, then point taken.
James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, November 20, 1861 (note, closer to the Declaration of Independence than to today):
Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.
You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954:
In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of reigious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.
That loony Eisenhower... what a crackpot. He said that in regards to adding "under God" to the Pledge.
Anyway, thanks for the history lesson. I didn't know how contemporary those devices were before, and you spurred some research, the fruits of which you see above. Thanks again.
Unfortunately, I think the same applies to the U.S. and christianity....
Well, I think you're an idiot. When did the US and Christianity start getting "entangled"? When IN GOD WE TRUST was on our nation's first currency, (and still appears there)? Was it when "under God" was written into the Pledge? My understanding of the current state of state and religion is that is is becoming less and less "entangled". Seems like we're not doing much better for it, either. If you think religion is the the opium of the people, then I've got a red book I'd love to sell you...
There's a difference between a legal monopoly and an illegal monopoly. AOL Time Warner isn't actively trying to make itself the ONLY news source.
That's because, unlike the computer software industry, the media business has clear-cut laws preventing any one media company from owning too many outlets in a given market, or more than one outlet of the same media in the same market. It's impossible to have a real illegal media monopoly, but given the diversity and breadth of AOL-TW's holdings, they are as close as we're going to get.
Microsoft is actively trying to make itself the only EVERYTHING
Do you realize what that makes you sound like? An anti-MS zealot freak. EVERYTHING? Are you serious? Even if MS controlled every single aspect of computing, that would still not be everything. Seriously, get outside once in a while.
Don't make comments when you don't accurately understand the difference between legal and illegal monopolies.
I don't remember seeing anything about legality in the post I responded to. Thanks for coming back with a bullshit know-it-all response, based on no fact, answering no questions asked, and insulting the poster, though.
The branded online community market.
Which market does Microsoft hold a monopoly in? The browser market? The desktop operating system market?
AOLTW:media::MS:desktop.
Now that the battle for the family room has been abandoned by Microsoft, the battle for the bathroom begins. That's where the real money is anyway.
So my software (8-Track) is no longer compatible with any of todays players (cassette, CD, whatever)..
8-tracks are a good analogy, except that you can do with the 8-track what you will, i.e., just tape it onto cassette, or go find an 8-track player to play your 8-tracks on. When these CDs become useless, they become really useless.
Should HP be sued if the "clever criminal mind" made off with the passwords?
No, because you didn't do anything malicious. If you did, you'd be a criminal, although "clever" is debatable.
No, but if Honda simply had only two keys which opened up all their products--then it would be their fault.
Says you. Ever watch a locksmith make a key for your car? I have. There's one blank they use for every single make and model. Using a metal file (no high-tech spy mission tools required), a good locksmith can have a key that works your door, trunk and ignition in about 5 minutes. It doesn't matter what kind of car you have, they get "root".
Hummers (not sure about the new ones) actually have doors that come off. You can actually steal the whole door. With no tools.
All it takes is a box cutter to get into any Jeep with a soft top.
We, as consumers [in the US at least] - whether private or corporate - have the ability to sue for damages and that really can keep a company in line.
Along with creating thousands of "hot McDonald's coffee on the crotch"-type lawsuits.
If your credit card number is stolen from an on-line retailer [...] sue the fsck out of them.
I agree. But can the retailer then turn around and sue Microsoft? NT can be locked down pretty tight. If it shipped that tight be default, much of the feature set would be disabled. I can see why MS wouldn't want that, because it's confusing to users who don't need that much security.
that gets exploited
A critical point, I think. Keep in mind that these security holes are not exactly akin to a lock with a pink sticker that says "This lock doesn't actually work". A lot of research and experimentation is necessary in order to exploit those security holes. Research and experimentation carried out by criminals. As much as I would love to see software companies held accountable for the generally terrible state of software quality industry-wide, I'm not sure it's fair to hold Microsoft responible for making possible the actions of a malicious hacker. Is it Honda's fault a slimjim opens the door of my Civic?
It costs under $1 each to manufacture CDs in quantity
/., right?
True, but how much does it cost throughout the layers of middlemen? How much does the Camelot in the mall pay to rent the space each CD occupies? What about warehouse space? Returns? Overstock? Training sales staff? In-store displays and other POP (point-of-purchase) marketing materials? When you get into the business of moving atoms, you incur more costs than just the straight manufacture of the atoms. I'd bet $3-$4 of each CD purchase goes to costs associated with manufacture aand distribution of the physical parts involved. Of course, I'm just pulling that figure out of my ass, but hey, this is
Besides, what about bands that can't justify the quantities necessary to get on shelves? All-digital distribution insures that only the right amount of copies are made, one for each buyer and no more.
I mean, nobody [crutchfield.com] makes car stereos with MP3 playback.
.nap playback. I use CDs full of MP3s in my car, house, and at work, but all of these devices will choke on .nap files. My point was that consumers wouldn't put up with paying for these .nap files, but they'd use them if they were free.
You missed the point. Nobody makes car stereos with
I agree. My argument is that the expectations of the average user are abysmal. What if the delivery van you mentioned only started 97% of the times you tried to start it the very first year you owned it. You'd be outraged. Exchange the van for software, and that 3% failure rate would be commendable. When the stated use of said software is to run your business, expectations should be higher than they are. If an employee only showed up almost all of the time, you'd fire them.
Someone please mod this up.
Does anyone know what the average consumer spends on CDs/mo.? I don't, but I'm willing to bet it's not $14.95. More like $5.95. If The Industry would stop worrying about people downloading 10GB of music for free (there's only 24hrs. in a day to listen to music anyway), and concentrated on the cost savings of completely eliminating distribution, it could make a fortune. Who cares if a user is hoarding music, if you don't actually have to pay anything to get it to them? Yeah, bandwidth, sure, but just throttle it, and buy it in bulk. I wouldn't mind waiting overnight to download 200+ songs!
Allow artists to tap into that $14.95/mo based on how often their song(s) is (are) downloaded.
I'll tell you who wants to pay for Napster... record companies! What if Napster was like it will be, proprietary format, unplayable in cars or disc players, but it was free?. I know, crazy, right? Look at it this way... with a music format this crippled, piracy using Napster is pretty much eliminated. I mean, who wants to download an illegal file that barely even works? If you like the song enough, you can go to the store and get the disc. Otherwise, you can't share, copy, or even play the thing without a lot of hassle.
Like radio (which is also a hassle to use as a piracy tool), record companies can vie for "airplay", but with a legal payola scheme. The Industry can use the New Napster to plug their albums, maybe only releasing selected singles, and pay for the privelege. Just like MTV, but with computers.
The hard-core music fan, or the mildly computer-savvy music fan is going to snort at a service like this, but Middle America might give it a shot (a la AOL). I mean, it's free, right? Napster, Inc. can charge the record co.'s per download of a given song (an "insertion" if you will, pun intended), and balance its books. Fans can try before they buy for free. Hooray, I win!
FLW did say that, but he never mass-produced anything. He also forced many people to furnish their homes, and even dress a certain way inside of them because it fit the form of the piece. If applied to mass-produced items, or commodities, the form-function rationale falls apart, because you're not allowed by business constraints to custom-make everything for everyone. In addition, if every object really did put function first, industry would establish what is the best way for everything to look, and then every object fitting that purpose would look that way. Useful, maybe, but not a lot of fun.
Ford bought Volvo, too, and now they're crap. Good point on Jag, though. The old joke used to be that one had to own two Jags, because one of them was always in the shop.
You're a damn idiot.
But I'm proud of it, AC. What does the second letter in that acronym stand for, anyway? I always forget, because of what an idiot I am.
What, never hear of backups?
Of course I have. I was just contending that the unreliability of modern software is unlike anything the world has ever seen. Of course, kidneys have backups, too, so maybe I was wrong.
You should try going to work for a real software company that has real customers.
Good idea. While I'm doing that, you should realize that you don't know that I don't already work for a real software company, or maybe even The Second Largest Corporation on Earth. I do, by the way. How's that CCS degree coming at whatever state college accepted you?
After bitching and screaming at your because your software doesn't work because their dipshit sys admin decided to install some POS shareware program that overwrote a bunch of system files, you try and see how ANY legislative body could justify holding software companies liable for bugs.
Legislative bodies don't hold anybody liable for anything, first off. Judicial bodies do. To answer the point you meant to put foward, though, how is it that programmers think that their work is so special that it can't be investigated by mere mortals? Doctors are held accountable for making mistakes with a system that no-one even knows the full extent of- the human body. Do you think putting a lawsuit against a software co. would really be that hard? Maybe I'm high on codeine syrup right now, but I still know that you're wrong. Peace out.
If you lose $50K and haven't kept backups, then you're surely guilty of contributory negligence.
So, you're saying that the consumer must buy a product that claims to work, and then make copies of all data because they expect it to fail? That doesn't seem right to me. The software industry has grown in importance to the realm of automotive or even medical equipment, yet it has no real "safety" regulations or quality checks. As soon as the first software manu gets sued because a bug killed a kid, this will all change, and for the better.
Programming for some is a hobby. I can build a car myself, but will it pass inspection? Probably not, and therefore wouldn't be legal to drive on the street. There are no checks in place to keep development shops from releasing whatever they want and claiming it's "street legal" or whatever.
Who is breaking the law here, the person lawfully using the content, in the privacy of his home, or the neighbor listening in on it?
If you're asking me, neither. The current business model of creating content once, then minting currency by charging fees to view/broadcast/repurpose it ad infinitum is crap. Of course, anything else would require content providers to defend their IP with content worth paying for instead of lawyers.
There's more like you at Changing the Climate.
It's illegal in most countries to own extremely high-powered broadcast equipment in certain (like FM) bands. This is so that London has to buy transponders in France in order to have it's content broadcast there. That way, the French can regulate British content in France. This analogy flies out the window when you realize that it only takes a NIC to broadcast worldwide instantly.
Of course, we have real user boundaries, so the damage would be limited.
Limited, how? Most viruses don't try to reformat drives or get r00t. Is it not within the average Linux/UNIX user's power to send an email, or create/modify a file? That's all that's needed to spread the modern virus. Don't kid yourself that a Linux virus can't do damage. Most Outlook users aren't logged in as Administrator either, yet those viruses still did real damage, in terms of bandwidth and email noise.
but let's face facts people, huge corporations aren't going to give some little-known format a try in their mass-market products just for kicks.
Especially since it offers no "strategic business synergies". Whenever a manu pairs up with a software company like real, Apple or Microsoft, they get more than just a codec, they get a partner. As time has shown us, being partnered with the OSS community doesn't offer the same business advantages, since the OSS community doesn't actually have any, eh, money.
Well, in order to have a law using age restrictions as a guideline, an age at which to lift (or to begin imposing) those restrictions has to be established. Since it's impossible to allow children into an X-rated movie on a case-by-case basis, the age of majority is used. That age (18 in the 'states) is used for a lot of age-restricted legislation, like cigarette smoking. It may seem arbitrary, but it's time-tested, and working OK.
I'm wth you on the old-enough-to-die-not-old-enough-to-drink point, but any age limit is not an arbitrary restriction. The age itself may seem arbitrary, but the idea of using age as a limiting factor is not.
Two problems with that: