Any store would be laughed out of court if they wanted 2 and a quarter million dollars in damages for a single CD. However, the RIAA gets away with it.
It's not because it's the RIAA vs. a store, it's because it's online. Too many people in power still don't understand this Internet thing, and don't realize that the same rules that apply to the Real World(TM) apply here as well - they think because the Internet is new and confusing, new laws need to be passed to regulate it differently, and if the RIAA's experts claim $2 million is reasonable, well, they know best, right? After all, they're experts! If we don't listen to them, it could destroy the entire economy.
*cough* Oh wait, the economy already sucks. Whoops.
Well the idea sounds cool and all, but isn't this just a bit too involved to help people come up with and remember what will become basically random strings of characters? This seems like going through lots more of an effort then just using a random password generator of x-characters and handing the person something to memorize.
No. People will not memorize a random string of characters. They won't do it. They don't believe they can. Instead, they'll write it down on a post-it note and stick it to their monitor or something.
People can remember what sick twisted things they see in ink blots. But as you said, to hackers, it's just a password.
More importantly, the manufacturer itself doesn't get the full retail sale price.
I've heard that this is one of the main reasons Microsoft operates their own retail store on their campus - so they CAN in fact claim full retail damages, instead of what they charge resellers. Of course, nobody buys anything from that store except employees, who get a discount.
My personal opinion is similar to the other poster, in that I say STAY AWAY FROM CRM PACKAGES!!!!! I can go in to more detail if you want, but they are a bloated mess.
I heartily agree. In this economy, you can hire a team of competent programmers* to develop and maintain your own in-house solution for less money than it would cost to license something from a major vendor. The major cost savings is in the maintenance - your own programmers can update the software to fit your business needs on their regular salary; you don't have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get an option added to a drop-down menu. Why depend on someone else for the software that runs your business?
* Tip: don't hire stupid people with no experience. When this plan fails, that's usually why. General rule of thumb: if they prefer Windows, they don't know what they're doing.
...but now people could organize real grassroots campaigns, skipping the primaries, and just promote themselves on message boards and other mediums (slashdot front page story, anybody?)
90% compatibility is obsurdly optomistic figure for Microsoft specific stuff anyway because Microsoft makes changes between their OS releases that force the upgrade train. Be sure that electronic voting in 2004 wont work on Windows 2000, NT or 9x.
Ah, but the same version (sort of) of Internet Explorer runs across all these versions of Windows. They can require IE 6 or above, and anyone with an older version of IE can upgrade. To get it to work on any other platform, though, would require supporting a completely different browser.
They will be lucky to get half of windoze users.
I know this isn't what you meant, but there's another good point here: although 80% or more of personal computers run Windows, the percentage of Mac or Linux or BSD users who would like to try online voting is probably higher than the percentage of Windows users who would like to try it.
Average Windows users are morons, but almost everyone at OSCon who had a laptop was running Mac OS X (and most of the few PC laptops were running Linux or BSD). People who want online voting are people who embrace technology. Many Windows users do, but many others have difficulty just checking their e-mail.
The reason just windows is because that as much as we hate it, we are in the minority of computer uses, they are not going to Bata test a new technology on a system that only a maximum of 5% of computer users will have (and yes I am being overly optimistic here) if this works for them the next platform will be Mac. Linux may never get it, unless more people use Linux, and I doubt that they would want to open up the code to the voting system that could create a large number of people trying to skew the results so that the results are not accurate.
I strongly disagree. It requires Windows because the people responsible don't know anything other than Windows, are too incompetent to design it to work cross-platform, and too lazy to test it on other systems. If this changes, then it will be opened up to work on nearly anything. It will not be ported to the Mac with the same closed attitude; it will only be ported to the Mac with an open attitude, and Linux and BSD will be embraced as well if that happens.
I suspect the requirement isn't Windows, but Internet Explorer on Windows. Note that Internet Explorer on Mac is a completely different browser with very different features, and is being discontinued anyway because the Mac OS X version sucks ass.
Correctability: assuring that I can modify my vote for a certain period after it has been cast (because there is no oversight in voting at home, I could have been coerced to vote a certain way, e.g. by someone coming into my home and holding a gun against my head, and should be able to correct this).
Someone could come into your home, hold a gun to your head, and make you correct your previous vote too.
Oh really? I bet you would apply that same logic if it was up to Microsoft to try patent this idea...
I was kinda referring to the claim that Apple never uses their patents. Such a claim was not made about Microsoft.
I should have added, a defensive patent is also used so that if an evil company did sue Apple for something, Apple could find something in their patent arsenal that the evil company was infringing on, and threaten to countersue the evil company, until some sort of licensing agreement could be reached - threat to Apple averted.
Even if Apple won't sue anyone, there are any number of companies that would sue at the drop of a hat. Would you be so complacent if SCO pulled a stunt like this?
Apple patents stuff like this for precisely this reason: to discourage sleazy companies like SCO from patenting it and suing Apple. It's a "defensive patent".
It's a Mallrats reference; see the movie if you haven't. Actually, see Clerks first, the Mallrats, then Chasing Amy, then Dogma. If you like all of those, see Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back and An Evening With Kevin Smith.
I'm not disagreeing with that, just saying nobody outside the Maine area really cares much about the other Portland.
When you select your time zone on the Mac OS, it asks you to choose a city in your time zone. One of the options in "Portland, USA". I bet that pisses off people in Maine.
The new judge didn't see anything wrong with the proposed settlement and ignored the critics...
As I recall, she was a bit upset that the proposed settlement didn't go far enough, but there was nothing she could do - it's up to the prosecution to make their case, and they weren't making it.
True, but I had in mind a workaround for the doctors, so they don't have to prescribe any drugs at all.
Um, what exactly would the doctors be doing then?
Under Oregon's law, doctors don't actually administer the drugs, just prescribe them. The patient then takes them at home, unless they change their mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Any store would be laughed out of court if they wanted 2 and a quarter million dollars in damages for a single CD. However, the RIAA gets away with it.
It's not because it's the RIAA vs. a store, it's because it's online. Too many people in power still don't understand this Internet thing, and don't realize that the same rules that apply to the Real World(TM) apply here as well - they think because the Internet is new and confusing, new laws need to be passed to regulate it differently, and if the RIAA's experts claim $2 million is reasonable, well, they know best, right? After all, they're experts! If we don't listen to them, it could destroy the entire economy.
*cough* Oh wait, the economy already sucks. Whoops.
Well the idea sounds cool and all, but isn't this just a bit too involved to help people come up with and remember what will become basically random strings of characters? This seems like going through lots more of an effort then just using a random password generator of x-characters and handing the person something to memorize.
No. People will not memorize a random string of characters. They won't do it. They don't believe they can. Instead, they'll write it down on a post-it note and stick it to their monitor or something.
People can remember what sick twisted things they see in ink blots. But as you said, to hackers, it's just a password.
Until iTunes music store starts to carry music that is at least -somewhat- off the beaten path, I'm not going to subscribe.
First, there is no subscription. If they have what you're looking for, you may buy it, and if they don't, you're no worse off than you were before.
Second, they're working on adding independant labels, but they're not quite set up for that just yet. Give them a couple months and see what happens.
More importantly, the manufacturer itself doesn't get the full retail sale price.
I've heard that this is one of the main reasons Microsoft operates their own retail store on their campus - so they CAN in fact claim full retail damages, instead of what they charge resellers. Of course, nobody buys anything from that store except employees, who get a discount.
So much for the World-Wide Web, then. Why do companies have to take a perfectly decent thing and molest it until it is worthless to society?
To differentiate themselves from the competition. The question is, why do consumers make those companies successful?
Might get myself some Peoplesoft software instead of a Lotto ticket this week.
Hate to rain on your parade, but Peoplesoft's software is just a tiny bit more expensive than a lottery ticket.
My personal opinion is similar to the other poster, in that I say STAY AWAY FROM CRM PACKAGES!!!!! I can go in to more detail if you want, but they are a bloated mess.
I heartily agree. In this economy, you can hire a team of competent programmers* to develop and maintain your own in-house solution for less money than it would cost to license something from a major vendor. The major cost savings is in the maintenance - your own programmers can update the software to fit your business needs on their regular salary; you don't have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get an option added to a drop-down menu. Why depend on someone else for the software that runs your business?
* Tip: don't hire stupid people with no experience. When this plan fails, that's usually why. General rule of thumb: if they prefer Windows, they don't know what they're doing.
didn't orgs switch to SAP when they went Linux?
Yes, both of them did. The rest are still running on Windows.
then they go back and make it a requirement to vote.
To vote online. Thankfully, Windows isn't required to vote yet.
...but now people could organize real grassroots campaigns, skipping the primaries, and just promote themselves on message boards and other mediums (slashdot front page story, anybody?)
Like this one?
90% compatibility is obsurdly optomistic figure for Microsoft specific stuff anyway because Microsoft makes changes between their OS releases that force the upgrade train. Be sure that electronic voting in 2004 wont work on Windows 2000, NT or 9x.
Ah, but the same version (sort of) of Internet Explorer runs across all these versions of Windows. They can require IE 6 or above, and anyone with an older version of IE can upgrade. To get it to work on any other platform, though, would require supporting a completely different browser.
They will be lucky to get half of windoze users.
I know this isn't what you meant, but there's another good point here: although 80% or more of personal computers run Windows, the percentage of Mac or Linux or BSD users who would like to try online voting is probably higher than the percentage of Windows users who would like to try it.
Average Windows users are morons, but almost everyone at OSCon who had a laptop was running Mac OS X (and most of the few PC laptops were running Linux or BSD). People who want online voting are people who embrace technology. Many Windows users do, but many others have difficulty just checking their e-mail.
The reason just windows is because that as much as we hate it, we are in the minority of computer uses, they are not going to Bata test a new technology on a system that only a maximum of 5% of computer users will have (and yes I am being overly optimistic here) if this works for them the next platform will be Mac. Linux may never get it, unless more people use Linux, and I doubt that they would want to open up the code to the voting system that could create a large number of people trying to skew the results so that the results are not accurate.
I strongly disagree. It requires Windows because the people responsible don't know anything other than Windows, are too incompetent to design it to work cross-platform, and too lazy to test it on other systems. If this changes, then it will be opened up to work on nearly anything. It will not be ported to the Mac with the same closed attitude; it will only be ported to the Mac with an open attitude, and Linux and BSD will be embraced as well if that happens.
I suspect the requirement isn't Windows, but Internet Explorer on Windows. Note that Internet Explorer on Mac is a completely different browser with very different features, and is being discontinued anyway because the Mac OS X version sucks ass.
Correctability: assuring that I can modify my vote for a certain period after it has been cast (because there is no oversight in voting at home, I could have been coerced to vote a certain way, e.g. by someone coming into my home and holding a gun against my head, and should be able to correct this).
Someone could come into your home, hold a gun to your head, and make you correct your previous vote too.
Oh really? I bet you would apply that same logic if it was up to Microsoft to try patent this idea ...
I was kinda referring to the claim that Apple never uses their patents. Such a claim was not made about Microsoft.
I should have added, a defensive patent is also used so that if an evil company did sue Apple for something, Apple could find something in their patent arsenal that the evil company was infringing on, and threaten to countersue the evil company, until some sort of licensing agreement could be reached - threat to Apple averted.
Relevant comic
Even if Apple won't sue anyone, there are any number of companies that would sue at the drop of a hat. Would you be so complacent if SCO pulled a stunt like this?
Apple patents stuff like this for precisely this reason: to discourage sleazy companies like SCO from patenting it and suing Apple. It's a "defensive patent".
Would you recommend watching the Star Wars movies starting with episode 1?
After Episode III comes out, I might. I don't know.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
It's a Mallrats reference; see the movie if you haven't. Actually, see Clerks first, the Mallrats, then Chasing Amy, then Dogma. If you like all of those, see Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back and An Evening With Kevin Smith.
Am I fired?
Actually we're gonna need your desk space, so if you could just pack up your things and move downstairs into the basement, that'd be great.
I'm not disagreeing with that, just saying nobody outside the Maine area really cares much about the other Portland.
When you select your time zone on the Mac OS, it asks you to choose a city in your time zone. One of the options in "Portland, USA". I bet that pisses off people in Maine.
Who here wouldn't buy a legal copy of XP Pro for $50?
Me.
The new judge didn't see anything wrong with the proposed settlement and ignored the critics...
As I recall, she was a bit upset that the proposed settlement didn't go far enough, but there was nothing she could do - it's up to the prosecution to make their case, and they weren't making it.
Portland? Which one? Are there any real journalists in the house?
Journalists in or near Maine, you mean? I don't think anyone else is wondering. It's Portland, Oregon.
Ah, didn't know OR let the patient self-medicate. Last I'd heard, it had to be doctor-administered.
Nope, AFAIK in OR it can't be doctor-administered, the patient has to do it on their own. That's one of many controls to prevent abuse.
I'm not necessarily in favor of the law, btw.
The group that proposed and promoted the law is here if you want more info.
True, but I had in mind a workaround for the doctors, so they don't have to prescribe any drugs at all.
Um, what exactly would the doctors be doing then?
Under Oregon's law, doctors don't actually administer the drugs, just prescribe them. The patient then takes them at home, unless they change their mind.