You'd think they would have, and it should be obvious to anyone... but when it comes to computing, lawyers have demonstrated remarkable blind spots (as vast swaths of recent legislation amply demonstrate).
The Windows OEM copies I've seen have a notice on the packaging, "for sale only with a new PC". But there's nothing specific about *what* constitutes a "new PC".
Actually, I made the same point somewhere upstream, and I'm a freakin' M$ shareholder and generally prefer using Windows on my desktop. -- What I got from Ballmer's remarks is that if hardware were cheaper, M$ would get a bigger piece of the pie for every system sold. IOW, that M$'s portion is the only part with any value, and if the rest of the industry can't make a buck because their margins have been shaved below profitability... oh well!! (Remind anyone else of WalMart's tactics??)
Wordstar sold OEM copies with a similar arrangement: it was available only when sold with "hardware". DAK sold WS bundled with a mouse for years, and that only after Wordstar's lawyers got on their case. But WS couldn't force them to bundle anything more, because WS had failed to specify exactly what constituted "hardware".
(And CTRL-K-Q to WS for their lack of foresight...)
What I got from Ballmer's remarks, is that if the PC itself cost less, people would have more money to spend on software (specifically on M$ software, of course!) and therefore would pirate it less. (Yeah, right.) But I think the piracy reference is just a red herring; it sounds to me like he wants to rebalance the hardware-software cost equation to totally favour M$. And as you do imply, I don't see how that's practical unless the PC is reduced to a limited-functionality appliance.
I've mentioned this before, but... A while back a normally-reputable survey outfit had a survey involving a little program that was supposed to make a general report on what hardware and software were present, but without any data that could be "personally identifiable". The output was an XML file, so I took a look at it. While it didn't bother indexing a lot of other file formats, it DID specifically index all the MP3s.
Needless to say, I didn't return the output file to the survey company (not only for what files it indexed, but mainly because there was quite a lot of info that could have been parsed down to ID an individual, such as directory names for Mozilla mail accounts.)
But since the survey offered a $20 reward for completion, I'm sure a lot of people did return the output file, probably most without even looking at it.
Ah, thank you, I think (now my brain hurts, but I get the idea:)
...and don't give any thought to abnormal inputs. Too few programmers understand the concept of "defensive coding".
Hire me ("The beta tester who can break anything!") to test their software, and they'd soon learn better... "what happens if I click over there?? What if I type in this random nonsense instead of what it expects?? Whoops, when I make it do 40 things at once, it falls down goes boom... Even tho I seldom do such things on purpose, I seem to find a lot of such errors:)
I've seen what's probably a "whaddya mean it's wrapped around and died" result with a "too much data" situation in an old DOS app... locked it up good and solid. I had to be careful never to exceed 32k (actually 30k plus some room for overhead) or it fell over.
followed by a dialog box that proclaims "There was an internal error and one of the windows you were using will be closed" [OK]. (Never seen that one before.) IE then closes, with no aftereffects, which is kinda unusual since more often than not, when IE crashes it takes Win9* with it.
I had a similar problem with Mozilla 1.0 -- it crashed on EVERY page that included ANY javascript, and also when following ANY link from its bookmarks or from any file on my local disk. (It also leaked resources like nothing I'd ever seen, and was the ONLY app that *EVER* BSOD'd my good old Win95 box.) Which is why for a long time I reverted to Moz 0.99 as my "other" browser.
Moz 1.5 (currently my "other" browser -- normally I use NS3) doesn't crash much, but it's deadly slow on this poor old P3 with a lowly 1GB RAM.
Some of this is a side effect of development and testing being done almost entirely on Win2K/XP, where applications with nasty resource leaks are less of an issue (thus, as I've observed with MANY different newish programs, such leaks are no longer fixed).
That's interesting -- I mean about the comment in the HTML source that says if it's removed, the crash goes away.
I found that in IE5.00, a table border was rendered as normal or collapsed depending on an assortment of *text* factors (and other tags that had nothing to do with the table structure), even if the HTML was exactly the same. And how it's misrendered is different depending on the exact build.
See various stuff in http://home.earthlink.net/~rividh/kennel/news/tabl ebug/ I was playing with IE 5.00.2314.1003IC, but a friend checked it in IE 5.00.29nn.something, and while the bug was still there, it manifested at different points.
I think there was another explanation: Back in those days, Frontpage had a bug where if you were editing text inside a table in WYSIWYG mode, and happened to backspace too far, it would delete not only the text but ALSO the table tag, with a very common result of unclosed table structures. It would also mis-nest attributes when stuff was cut and pasted.
I suspect IE was tested primarily against code as *commonly produced by average Frontpage users*, and "taught" to ignore FP's more-common errors (primarily random unclosed tags and mis-nested attributes).
One of the odd things I've seen involving javascript:
As my everyday browser I use Netscape 3.04 (yes, really!) with images and javascript *disabled*.
Nonetheless, a very few pages' JAVASCRIPT would crash it. (Vonda McIntyre's former main page, for one.) The HTML part, minus the script, worked fine.
I'm wondering if NS is doing with JS (while disabled) like DOS did with comments: parse the comment, then go back to the beginning of the line and go OOOPs, that was a comment, not supposed to do that! (this is why you don't put pipe and angle-bracket characters in comment lines in DOS batch files -- they're parsed and executed *before* DOS goes back to the beginning of the line and processes the comment flag.)
I just checked all the "free samples" against IE 5.00.2314.1003c (the Win2K team's internal build, and the only IE version that I consider halfway decent). It dates back to late 1999. My copy has NOT been patched.
NONE of the samples crashed my IE5.00.
mozilla_die3.html *did* cause IE5.00 to ask to access the internet (per ZoneAlarm's popup); from the simple HTML involved, I don't see why that happened, so I consider this response a security issue.
Otherwise the worst result was a really stupid looking text entry box (about 1/8th inch wide and half an inch tall).
Didn't crash my beloved Netscape 3.04 either -- it just displayed the various examples as blank pages (its normal behaviour is to ignore unclosed or malformed tags, presumably because it doesn't make wild-assed guesses about the page's *intent*).
While what you say is pretty much true, a question for anyone who knows enough about the architecture and compiler issues -- I'd be curious as to how stable Windows would likely be on PPC, vs existing x86 chips -- better than on Intel, or worse??
Actually, this has a LOT to do with DAs, backwater or not, being able to demonstrate a high level of "tough against crime" -- which generally translates, at election time, to a high number of arrests and convictions, legit or not (as has been pointed out here before, plea bargaining is often used solely to get convictions, even against the innocent, if they don't have the resources to defend themselves, or can't *counter* the level of evidence presented. I have personally seen that in action.)
And you're right, that's entirely the point -- if they can use this as they wish, the concept of illegal search and seizure goes out the window. Tho it certainly would make an interesting rights case, ACLU style.
That's a good point, that should perhaps come to the ACLU's attention, if this proposition passes here.
Of course, if they decide that we don't own our DNA... since our DNA is part of our bodies, does that say we don't own our bodies? Isn't that the root concept of slavery??
There are other non-invasive possibilities for locating the RFID chip, too, such as a skin patch, or for those with pierced ears, a small earring. The point being that it's removeable, and under the control of the patient.
While it's all well and good to be sure your meds don't get switched with someone else's, this ever-increasing lack of control over our own lives is most definitely not. And an ID implant (however benign) that you can't remove, is not under your control.
Speaking as one who has reached the "gun turrets at the border!" stage of, er, international diplomacy...
It might be a thought for illegal aliens being deported... Bury a wire along the border that carries a signal tripped by a passing RFID tag, and alerts the nearest patrol. (Or better yet, turns the RFID chip up to "Fry";)
Hey, if you're here illegally, don't bitch about the methods used to throw you out and KEEP you out.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course iPod == theft. "Theft" is any money paid to anyone other than M$ !!
(Tho I think you've got a good point about the spin angle)
I'da thought that would make him the Pointless Boss ;)
You'd think they would have, and it should be obvious to anyone... but when it comes to computing, lawyers have demonstrated remarkable blind spots (as vast swaths of recent legislation amply demonstrate).
The Windows OEM copies I've seen have a notice on the packaging, "for sale only with a new PC". But there's nothing specific about *what* constitutes a "new PC".
Actually, I made the same point somewhere upstream, and I'm a freakin' M$ shareholder and generally prefer using Windows on my desktop. -- What I got from Ballmer's remarks is that if hardware were cheaper, M$ would get a bigger piece of the pie for every system sold. IOW, that M$'s portion is the only part with any value, and if the rest of the industry can't make a buck because their margins have been shaved below profitability... oh well!! (Remind anyone else of WalMart's tactics??)
Wordstar sold OEM copies with a similar arrangement: it was available only when sold with "hardware". DAK sold WS bundled with a mouse for years, and that only after Wordstar's lawyers got on their case. But WS couldn't force them to bundle anything more, because WS had failed to specify exactly what constituted "hardware".
(And CTRL-K-Q to WS for their lack of foresight...)
What I got from Ballmer's remarks, is that if the PC itself cost less, people would have more money to spend on software (specifically on M$ software, of course!) and therefore would pirate it less. (Yeah, right.) But I think the piracy reference is just a red herring; it sounds to me like he wants to rebalance the hardware-software cost equation to totally favour M$. And as you do imply, I don't see how that's practical unless the PC is reduced to a limited-functionality appliance.
They're not THAT bad ... :)
So, when are you running for office? ;P
That's just weird... those are the same two tracks I've got, except mine (*not* from Napster) are 3:46 and 4:34, respectively.
;)
Are you sure your backup isn't corrupted?
I've mentioned this before, but... A while back a normally-reputable survey outfit had a survey involving a little program that was supposed to make a general report on what hardware and software were present, but without any data that could be "personally identifiable". The output was an XML file, so I took a look at it. While it didn't bother indexing a lot of other file formats, it DID specifically index all the MP3s.
Needless to say, I didn't return the output file to the survey company (not only for what files it indexed, but mainly because there was quite a lot of info that could have been parsed down to ID an individual, such as directory names for Mozilla mail accounts.)
But since the survey offered a $20 reward for completion, I'm sure a lot of people did return the output file, probably most without even looking at it.
Hire me ("The beta tester who can break anything!") to test their software, and they'd soon learn better... "what happens if I click over there?? What if I type in this random nonsense instead of what it expects?? Whoops, when I make it do 40 things at once, it falls down goes boom... Even tho I seldom do such things on purpose, I seem to find a lot of such errors :)
I've seen what's probably a "whaddya mean it's wrapped around and died" result with a "too much data" situation in an old DOS app... locked it up good and solid. I had to be careful never to exceed 32k (actually 30k plus some room for overhead) or it fell over.
ie6crash.shtml also crashes IE5.00 on Win98:
This program has performed and illegal operation, yadda yadda.. details:
IEXPLORE caused a stack fault in module SHLWAPI.DLL at 015f:70bdf369.
Registers:
EAX=00cc5260 CS=015f EIP=70bdf369 EFLGS=00010206
EBX=06000000 SS=0167 ESP=00551f44 EBP=005525cc
ECX=00552814 DS=0167 ESI=06000000 FS=4db7
EDX=00000009 ES=0167 EDI=00553300 GS=0000
Bytes at CS:EIP:
53 56 57 8d 8d 98 fd ff ff e8 fd 4e ff ff ff 75
Stack dump:
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
followed by a dialog box that proclaims "There was an internal error and one of the windows you were using will be closed" [OK]. (Never seen that one before.) IE then closes, with no aftereffects, which is kinda unusual since more often than not, when IE crashes it takes Win9* with it.
I had a similar problem with Mozilla 1.0 -- it crashed on EVERY page that included ANY javascript, and also when following ANY link from its bookmarks or from any file on my local disk. (It also leaked resources like nothing I'd ever seen, and was the ONLY app that *EVER* BSOD'd my good old Win95 box.) Which is why for a long time I reverted to Moz 0.99 as my "other" browser.
Moz 1.5 (currently my "other" browser -- normally I use NS3) doesn't crash much, but it's deadly slow on this poor old P3 with a lowly 1GB RAM.
Some of this is a side effect of development and testing being done almost entirely on Win2K/XP, where applications with nasty resource leaks are less of an issue (thus, as I've observed with MANY different newish programs, such leaks are no longer fixed).
That's interesting -- I mean about the comment in the HTML source that says if it's removed, the crash goes away.
l ebug/
I found that in IE5.00, a table border was rendered as normal or collapsed depending on an assortment of *text* factors (and other tags that had nothing to do with the table structure), even if the HTML was exactly the same. And how it's misrendered is different depending on the exact build.
See various stuff in http://home.earthlink.net/~rividh/kennel/news/tab
I was playing with IE 5.00.2314.1003IC, but a friend checked it in IE 5.00.29nn.something, and while the bug was still there, it manifested at different points.
I think there was another explanation: Back in those days, Frontpage had a bug where if you were editing text inside a table in WYSIWYG mode, and happened to backspace too far, it would delete not only the text but ALSO the table tag, with a very common result of unclosed table structures. It would also mis-nest attributes when stuff was cut and pasted.
I suspect IE was tested primarily against code as *commonly produced by average Frontpage users*, and "taught" to ignore FP's more-common errors (primarily random unclosed tags and mis-nested attributes).
BTW, this bug was finally fixed as of FP2000.
One of the odd things I've seen involving javascript:
As my everyday browser I use Netscape 3.04 (yes, really!) with images and javascript *disabled*.
Nonetheless, a very few pages' JAVASCRIPT would crash it. (Vonda McIntyre's former main page, for one.) The HTML part, minus the script, worked fine.
I'm wondering if NS is doing with JS (while disabled) like DOS did with comments: parse the comment, then go back to the beginning of the line and go OOOPs, that was a comment, not supposed to do that! (this is why you don't put pipe and angle-bracket characters in comment lines in DOS batch files -- they're parsed and executed *before* DOS goes back to the beginning of the line and processes the comment flag.)
Just to say thanks for the explanation, which even this non-coder-but-interested-bystander understood perfectly. :D
As to Charles-A's question about why not use boundary checking, *is* there some reason why it's not typically used?? (at least not in C)
I just checked all the "free samples" against IE 5.00.2314.1003c (the Win2K team's internal build, and the only IE version that I consider halfway decent). It dates back to late 1999. My copy has NOT been patched.
NONE of the samples crashed my IE5.00.
mozilla_die3.html *did* cause IE5.00 to ask to access the internet (per ZoneAlarm's popup); from the simple HTML involved, I don't see why that happened, so I consider this response a security issue.
Otherwise the worst result was a really stupid looking text entry box (about 1/8th inch wide and half an inch tall).
Didn't crash my beloved Netscape 3.04 either -- it just displayed the various examples as blank pages (its normal behaviour is to ignore unclosed or malformed tags, presumably because it doesn't make wild-assed guesses about the page's *intent*).
Thanks for the link, I'll be adding more to my stable of browsers :)
I sometimes use Mosaic 0.99, mainly to check how a page degrades for text browsers (it renders close enough for that).
While what you say is pretty much true, a question for anyone who knows enough about the architecture and compiler issues -- I'd be curious as to how stable Windows would likely be on PPC, vs existing x86 chips -- better than on Intel, or worse??
Actually, this has a LOT to do with DAs, backwater or not, being able to demonstrate a high level of "tough against crime" -- which generally translates, at election time, to a high number of arrests and convictions, legit or not (as has been pointed out here before, plea bargaining is often used solely to get convictions, even against the innocent, if they don't have the resources to defend themselves, or can't *counter* the level of evidence presented. I have personally seen that in action.)
And you're right, that's entirely the point -- if they can use this as they wish, the concept of illegal search and seizure goes out the window. Tho it certainly would make an interesting rights case, ACLU style.
That's a good point, that should perhaps come to the ACLU's attention, if this proposition passes here.
Of course, if they decide that we don't own our DNA... since our DNA is part of our bodies, does that say we don't own our bodies? Isn't that the root concept of slavery??
There are other non-invasive possibilities for locating the RFID chip, too, such as a skin patch, or for those with pierced ears, a small earring. The point being that it's removeable, and under the control of the patient.
While it's all well and good to be sure your meds don't get switched with someone else's, this ever-increasing lack of control over our own lives is most definitely not. And an ID implant (however benign) that you can't remove, is not under your control.
Speaking as one who has reached the "gun turrets at the border!" stage of, er, international diplomacy...
;)
It might be a thought for illegal aliens being deported... Bury a wire along the border that carries a signal tripped by a passing RFID tag, and alerts the nearest patrol. (Or better yet, turns the RFID chip up to "Fry"
Hey, if you're here illegally, don't bitch about the methods used to throw you out and KEEP you out.