I will acknowledge that calculating back to the big bang is a difficult prospect and, if all those scientists are right, a null prospect as we can not actually destroy matter -- we can only change its hairstyle. It all balances at the big un-bang, supposedly. If all those rabid recylcers can just chill for a few billion years then they'll see the REAL "end of the world," right? Well, I can't wait that long and that's where we differ -- you must have patience immeasurable.
Since both you and I acknowledge that this math is improbable at best then we have to use our best conjecture to engage in a discussion. You will always point out that whatever math I use excludes some prior piece of math before it. Since you will never acknowledge a starting point for the math other than an unachievable one then it is impossible to engage in a discussion with you on the topic -- your mind is already made up.
And I cannot discuss rationally with you if you cannot acknowledge that "impact" is perceived differently by different people and therefore makes math unusable in the discussion anyway. Sure a quick strip mining of an acre will take it out of the productive loop for a couple of decades -- so what? Well you place a different value on impact than I do -- I see those recovering ecosystem decades as loss, you don't. Our math-less math can never be equal if we stick to it that way.
Now if we agree that our basis for "impact" and "value," you may name it "cost" or Homer Simpson" if you so desire, is different then we have a starting point! I might be able, in that regard, to drum up outrage in YOU by increasing your perception of "impact" by discussing productivity over time where the length of time gains value by reducing it. The reverse may also be true, of course. You might convince me that the time factor is so infinitely small that our ant trails in the sand are so far below planetary notice that I could make a lifetime project of spraying DDT 20 hours a day and do no long lasting damage -- she'll recover, good 'ol nature, she will.
Too bad we can't talk about it. We can't even BEGIN the discussion. You mention the evils of motives and supposition whilst simultaneously denouncing all math as ambiguous at best and then you say "Just calculate." I can't even begin to make calculations you'd understand without first discussing values with you and you're not willing to accept either math or values. Nice Catch-22 you've created. Perhaps you are afraid someone will change your mind and you'll acquire some level of guilt about your environmental impact. It's okay. I was, too. But you talk about it and do the best you can. I never enter a conversation unless all parties are willing to change their minds. When they can't change their minds it's called an argument or a lecture. No thanks.
The only math I can offer that is likely undisputable is this: our rate of conversion of existing or regenerating resources into other things of dubious benefit is faster than it once was and in many cases is MUCH faster than natural processes can recover it. It took a lot less time to make and/or power that laptop then it did for the planet to store the needed energy in various forms. It will take time and energy to get it back to its origins. What environmentalists squeak about is just that -- the speed with which we take a normally low-impact resource (million year-old oil or a 10 year old tree) and convert it into something of questionable worth but definitely more toxic for a few months or years then do little to return it to its previous mostly benign state.
But that's a conversation starter with no mathematical operands relating to impossible math so I guess we can't really discuss it. Sorry to have wasted your bandwidth.
I remember lusting after big flat panel speakers when I was a teen (15 years ago!) because they were cool-looking and were a different technology than a magnet wiggling a cone of some random material. I just love it when people rail about Bose speakers using 20 year-old technology when in fact nearly every speaker you can buy is using the same decades old technology -- the primary difference being WHAT type of cone the magnet is wiggling. Sure, some polymers sound better than some papers but its like the combustion engine - it can only go so far until a new tech replaces it.
Ace905 is correct in this to some degree. If you don't enforce your patent by researching and finding infringers, informing infringers to cease and desist, and ultimately taking infringers to court (costs YOU money to do any of this) then they simply make their infringing product anyways and you lose market share. Then, after some amount of time, you can no longer claim damages back to the beginning of their infringement (some kind of limitation on that if you didn't find and communicate with them early on).
You technically don't lose your patent, true, but you certainly lose the benefit of having the bloody thing to begin with if you don't defend it.
So you make a business decision; research patent validity, apply, and then defend costing $X (lawyers fees at every step of the way here), or release and market spending $X. Reminds me of StarCraft, in a way... Do lawyers play StarCraft? I wouldn't know as I am not one.
Searched the web for google-watch and his page is the first one and many of the other results refer back to him (just what he wants to have happen, right?). I'm a little confused about his problem...
But it may be considered not to be fair that she'd have to withdraw from purchasing.
Careful with that -- you'll soon be guaranteeing sales to vendors or guaranteeing stock levels to customers -- neither is even remotely fair.
Especially if learning more was difficult or impossible (can't look on the net if you don't have an OS yet..)
Specious. Even if the only research she had was the outside of the box then she KNEW she was buying something she might not get along with. Which part of "LICENSE AGREEMENT INSIDE" don't you understand? She knew it was in there, could potentially be not what she wanted, and she plopped down $ anyways...
And it didn't. And this was because of a property of the product - the terms.
You're not understanding the basis of the discussion, here. The terms on the box and in the store were GLARINGLY clear -- if you buy this and open it you cannot return it. You cannot use it unless you agree with what's inside. You cannot see what's inside unless you open it. Rather than put the damn thing back on the shelf as a grab bag she didn't want to touch, she FREELY CHOSE to gamble on the license inside. She bought a lottery ticket or a box of chocolates or a magic 8-ball or any number of things where you KNOW from the description of the object that the outcome is not clear. It is really, really simple.
It isn't "not fair" of Microsoft, et al. It is stupid because it will cost them customers. Why is their stupidity in marketing up to a legal challenge?
EVERY good is a "potential lemon". That's why consumers are protected against them. In particular your analogy would only be appropriate if ALL cars were sold with oil spilling out of them, since after all, ALL software has the hidden EULA.
You have twisted my analogy. Not all software has hidden EULAs, by any means. Type any of these into google:
linux license agreement apple license agreement windows XP license agreement
The first 2, within 5 or 6 from the top of the search, take you directly to a EULA for an OS.
My analogy was to point out an OBVIOUS lemon which she chose to ignore.
But the shop can't stick up a sign saying "Potentially moldy bread for sale" and then say that any customer who buys a loaf, which later turns out to be moldy, can't return it.
Why the hell not? Ever buy day old bagels? You can't return them because they are stale -- they are sold to you potentially that way! You buy based on potential, knowing they might not be all good. You get a better deal because of the potential. That's the case with the MS box. You buy it KNOWING that it contains something you might not like (it's written right there on the box). If you don't want a potentially pissy license, cough up $10,000 for an unlimited license (or whatever it costs) and step away from the lower-priced licensed deal. I really don't follow your point on this one.
Many Microsoft products don't make that info available, you're right -- sounds like a bad business practice and one that is likely to cost them customers. So don't buy from them. I typed the following into google:
linux license agreement apple license agreement windows XP license agreement (XP added to eliminate all the windows 95 references)
Simple, really. If you don't like the RIAA and it politics, don't buy Sony CDs. If you don't like Microsoft or Symantec's ham-handed EULA management, don't buy their products. Nothing will break their backs quicker. This silly lawsuit won't do it. The best this lawsuit can hope for, beyond a teeny weeny settlement, is to heighten people's awareness that non-exposed EULAs are dangerous so you should consider other software. If Microsoft doesn't change their practice they will lose business -- it's all about competition.
The only reason to sue them is because they have harmed or wronged you in some way. In this instance they did not harm or wrong anyone who read and even remotely understood the damn box!! Yes, just the box -- I've clarified that to death. That is my ultimate point and the one that will likely win in the courts. A great win would be that the EULA ENCLOSED label will be in big red letters and a copy will be available at the counter, be 25 pages long, and take you a half an hour to understand so you'll compulsion buy anyways to save time. The open box/ no-return policy will likely still stand.
I sent an email to piracy@microsoft.com asking about getting a copy of the EULA. You are exactly right about it not being obvious (if at all) on their web site. After poking around the common email address was that piracy one so I tried that. We'll see...
As it stands here, this is completely incorrect. As a business, you are legally required to provide refunds for the products you sell, if they are not fit for the purpose for which they are sold.
Touche'. You are correct about offering refunds and my blanket statement is erroneous.
However the product stated its purpose on the box -- a software product that performed X function with an included but hidden license. She did not have to buy it knowing those conditions, yet she did.
The example I use is a weed-whacker: it says on the box that it is dangerous. If, after you open the box and read the full safety considerations, you decide it is too dangerous for you to use --- well, I'll be damned... almost countered my own argument... You should be able to return it. I guess the difference is that there is no implied LICENSE with a weed-whacker. You don't have to agree to anything just to use it and no where on the box does it say "You must agree to comply with some obscure and unfathomable document before you whack any weeds." If it did say that then you'd be silly to buy it in the first place.
Vote with your wallet. Don't buy things with EULAs inside.
This should preferably be in writing and signed if clarity is needed in court should a dispute arise.
Signed, you mean like a credit card receipt? She may have paid in cash, true, but a no return policy is bordering on common sense for many things.
Please understand -- I think EULAs suck but I also think this case is frivolous and does not really attack the issue intended to spark glee by the original poster.
Why did your research stop at technical merit? Seems a silly place to stop when you purchase a LICENSED product. What about researching the license BEFORE you purchase? I cannot say it enough -- no one held a gun to yours or her head to force her to plunk the money down on something that was clearly labeled. Your example above is absolutely perfect in illustrating my point -- that's what happens when you make snap or uninformed decisions just because you are standing in the checkout line, actively ignoring any posted signs and BEFORE you've bothered to read and understand the box, and that cash is just burning your wallet to bits. What kind of informed consumer are you?
If a package says "May contain nuts," you know you're deathly allergic to nuts but take the gamble that THIS TIME there won't be any, and you eat anyways -- well, it is not the fault of the snack company that your dead.
If the package says "Contains a license agreement that you must agree to, even though we won't show you right now, nyah, nyah, nayh!" and you purchase it hoping that THIS TIME it won't request something ridiculous of you -- well, it is not the fault of the license crafter that you're a gambling man.
Why, as any kind of consumer, can you not walk out the door empty-handed because you don't like the terms of the sale? It seems that you are implying that this woman had no other choice.
Capitalism is based on the notion of an informed consumer making choices in the free marketplace.
Respectfully, I disagree quite heartily with your statement. What you state might be one idealistic version of capitalism. In reality, capitalism is based on the notion that a business with a perceived better product makes more money than the other guy. How the perception is derived I leave to your vivid imagination.
How can she make an informed choice, if she doesn't have the information?
You are assuming she cannot EVER get the information. That is not true -- there are several avenues for her to get the information: the web, snail mail, the telephone. You are annoyed because she cannot get the information EASILY between the software rack and the checkout counter at CompUSA. Well you can't get that/. review either, nor can you get the Consumer Reports bulletin (unless it was favorable and included in the marketing). Those are tools that inform you about purchases. Surely you did at LEAST that much research, nay? And yet you missed the whole licensing thing?
How could this woman not know that EULAs are a part of software? If she has a computer she probably had to agree to several. On the off chance she was buying a gift and did NOT know -- well, sorry lady, but just because you didn't know the speed limit was 25 doesn't make your doing 50 any more legal.
This is a case of opportunity. She'll band a bunch of folks together and hopefully make enough noise to get a settlement in lieu of actually winning. I hope she gets thrown out of court for wasting everyone's time. I positively HATE EULAs, but I also cannot condone what looks like someone attacking a big target to profit.
1. Buy a product without researching it 2. Try to return it because "it ain't right" 3. Sue the pants off SOMEBODY 4. Profit!!!
(I know the usual/. formula contains ??? as the 2nd to last step, but this is an OLD formula employed for centuries...)
She only needs to persuade the judge that it's reasonably unfair that she should be put into such a catch-22 situation.
That's the whole point. She was NOT "put into the situation." She voluntarily entered the situation with several indicators, of equal or greater size than the text of the EULA, pointing to the end result she suffered. She could have chosen to NOT purchase at any time and learn more about what it was she was buying. She didn't. The law protects against stupidity only so far.
Another point is that the goods you sell have to be fit for the purpose for which they're sold.
The purpose for which it is sold is this "To perform some task within the terms of use which you must agree to, but cannot yet see." That is written on the box. Had she accepted the terms it would have performed the purpose for which it was sold.
You sold her the license. So "no returns on opened software" doesn't affect her...
Specious at best. The item is sold by the vendor as is. Once opened it cannot be re-sold as what intelligent customer would purchase an opened box of software knowing that the license (visible or not) may or may not have been used and thus invalidate their purchase. It's like underwear -- no one wants to buy, knowingly or unknowingly, that which has been used and might therefore have legal or lethal consequences.
And she could easily argue that if the license isn't acceptable to her, then the license you sold her isn't fit for the purpose for which it was sold (to be accepted by her)...
Nope. The packaging that said "LICENSE INSIDE" was acceptable to her at the time of purchase and therefore it DID fit the purpose for which it was sold. It was sold as an item with an included, but not viewable, license.
She knowingly and in full capacity bought a potential LEMON. She choose to ignore the oil spilling out of the bottom of the car, then tried to return it because the engine made funny noises.
She can't choose to ignore the outside and then complain about the inside. If the bread has MOLD ON IT when you buy it AND IT SAYS SO ON THE LABEL "Moldy Bread for sale" you can't return it because the fluff beyond the crust was also moldy.
She bought the box knowing that the terms were INSIDE THE BOX when she KNEW SHE COULDN'T SEE THEM! Would you buy a car with the odometer covered? No? You'd buy from another dealer! You'd buy a different product!
If someone walks up to you and says, "Hey, AC, gimme 50 cents and I'll give you whatever's in this bag -- could be a winning lottery ticket! But you hafta do what's written on the little slip that's inside. No! I won't tell you what it says. It could say, 'Look behind you for another free million dollars,' or it could say, 'Shove this broken glass up your ass.' Whattaya say man?"
Do you buy it? Do you gamble? GREAT! Then purchase things with EULAs that you can't read without opening a non-returnable box, or buy them KNOWING that you might be in disagreement and use the damn software anyway just like the rest of the planet.
IANAL nor do I operate a retail operation in California, however I frequently purchase from establishments which have no return policies.
If she prevails it will be out of sheer dumb luck or exceptional lawyering -- she had many opportunities to understand the deal before she left the store.
Don't get me wrong -- I think most EULAs are not worth the paper or bits they are stored on, nor do they make any kind of sense. I just don't think THIS case is going to help get fairer licensing. Best the class action can hope for is to get reimbursed for some percentage of their purchases (did they use or get benefit from the software in any fashion?) and the EULA MIGHT get to the outside of the box, though more likely big red letters will be on the box stating that the EULA is still inside and buyer beware again...
Use a grab bag analogy to understand this better. She doesn't have to buy it. IF she read the box she knew she was buying something that had grab bag potential becuase the box said the terms were on the inside and the store will not accept refunds on opened boxes.
So how, exactly, is she supposed to find out the terms of the EULA without opening the box?
By NOT purchasing at this moment and doing research or buying a competing product that has a EULA she can read on the spot. Simple really.
And then what is she supposed to do if she doesn't accept the EULA terms?
She accepted the terms of the box when she purchased it. Those terms were essentially, "You may not like what you have to agree to in here so consider that before you buy," and, "No returns on opened software." She purchases other software that gives her a reasonable opportunity to read the license. She read the box. She knew the license was inside and could be NOT what she wanted. She bought it anyways. If you don't like grab-bags, don't buy them. That's the point here.
Why is it apparent that she can't read?
If she can read then she chose to ignore several written things: signs, receipts, and boxes -- all of which told her EXACTLY how the story would play out BEFORE she left the store.
1. Woman goes to CompUSA which has signs AND printed receipts saying NO RETURNS ON OPENED SOFTWARE which she refuses to read or accept (why would her implied acceptance of a EULA be any legally stronger?). She stills signs a check or credit card receipt or personally hands over cash to consummate the deal.
2. Women opens box which says, on the outside, you have to agree to the EULA on the inside. It is apparent at this point that she cannot actually read at all. Had the EULA actually been there she would not (could not?) have read it as evidenced by her actions thus far.
3. EULA contains terms that are onerous -- oh, NOW she can read.
4. She returns to vendor who points at the receipts and signs (which she again apparently cannot read or refuses to accept, just like the EULA) and smiles. She was warned. She didn't take the warning.
Caveat Emptor.
When she voluntarily PAID MONEY, she accepted the terms -- no refunds.
I cannot accept that CompUSA screwed her here. It sounds like CompUSA operated within their rights. As a business I can offer NO refunds whenever I want -- you may choose to shop elsewhere and I accept that. It's called business.
Now if CompUSA signed something as a Microsoft vendor that said they would accept Microsoft's refunds then CompUSA is screwed. If Microsoft accepts that the signature of CompUSA is meaningless and they can renege on the refund by posting NO REFUND signs then MS operates as if agreements mean nothing -- how handy!
What is more likely is that the refund should be sought from Microsoft if the box says (as my Win2K box does) "If you don't agree then promptly return for a refund." Doesn't say WHO is on the hook, but I would accept, annoyingly, that it really might not be the vendor!
If the box says "Seek a refund from the vendor" then the vendor STILL has a right to not offer one if they have no other agreements (pending local laws) AND Microsoft is off the hook! Double-extra-spicy Caveat Emptor. Don't compulsion buy anything!
Sure the thing will help you burn fat, but most games aren't marketed with a focus on health. They are marketed 2 ways: long-term playability OR alternate reality where you are a super-human demi-god and not the flabby/wimpy/pre-adult guy you actually are. You achieve demi-goddedness with hand-eye coordination only and not actually being Bruce Jenner (just dated myself right there didn't I...)
A 5 hour death-match on a bicycle? Yeah right. _I_ would die! The hand cramps and back-aches are bad enough! A 12-year-old putting in an entire weekend on bicycle Zelda -- HAHAHAHAHA! Pedalling for 40 hours to complete the entire BarCraft extended mission pack before final exams? That's an emergency room visit, people. Good luck marketing THAT sucker! This is a niche market at best.
The driving game concept sounds great -- until you are so physically tired you can't win anymore (insert your own pain threshold number of minutes) and are getting further and further behind. You then switch back to the hand controller and suddenly you can win again -- immediate and repeatable gratification so why go back to the bike? You could play Quake with a 250lb mouse to build up your forearms -- but I play Quake to kick some ass, folks, so bring it on, you fraggable rock! I have picked a variety of controllers over the years to make my game play easier, not harder! If the controller gets in the way of my gaming experience, I give it to my enemies.
The marketing would have to be EXTREMELY clever to make you feel like you WIN at the end of EVERY exercise session. The game would actually have to do that, probably. Set a 30 minute workout with a graduated system that, if you perform even a fraction of a percent better than your last game, guarantees a first place finish. It must pit you against yourself! If it pits you against folk around the world, well either you're a pro athlete or a great hardware/sensor hack to stay on top and that's a pretty small market.
Another programming/marketing strategy would be to make it such that your performance on the bike gets you extended play time with the controller. You bike for 15 minutes in a little "pre-game" scenario that is always a little different and performance-based as I described above (do the same or better each time to "win"), you get to play something else for 2 hours. If this were actually a POWER-generation system that charged a battery that powered the console it would have environmental benefit as well!
It is a neat idea, but very limited to those who actually want a pretty interactive picture to help them burn fat in the privacy of their homes (I would!), have the console for which it is designed (I don't), and don't mind the concept of being a loser when you're tired (I mind).
"But a continuous consumption of datareduced audio could possibly lead to fatal consequences..."
You mean if I use one of those karaoke voice removers from the 70's that I could DIE? (I mean from other than hurled rotten fruit).
And all those tapes I recorded in Dolby B!? I won't live to be 30!!
And the phone!! My god, man, the phone!!! IT IS A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!! Not only do they compress your voice and squirt it down little wires and fibres (and even through the air) but they CHARGE you for the PRIVILEDGE!! Now I KNOW the Illuiminati exist...
And let's not even TALK about the crappy signal to noise ratio of FM radio!!! WE ARE DOOMED!!!!
Interesting digital mind ejaculation he dabbled in without using a single microphone to qualitatively note anything. Those little flapping magnets and paper cone thingies produce ANALOG sound, anways...
Big deal, the TV can show you a digital picture and has a firewire port. What are you going to hook up to that firewire port? A SONY recorder? A PHILIPS recorder? A Palladium PC? They'll get their DRM on the back-end. Remember, they make the equipment and want to sell it -- they agree to nothing unless it is profitable (thay ain't doin' this because/.'ers want a prettier picture...)
It will be up to some hard-working programmer to even figure out what they are doing in the data stream and then deal with the wrath of the DMCA.
An awful lot of ambiguous things in there: "consumers can hook up everything and the equipment will ALLOW viewing elsewhere" -- at the same quality level? At the time of my choosing? The content I wish (ad-free if I want)?
AFAIK you would not be able to hook any of this up to any existing firewire recorders (Canon and Sony cameras for instance as they aren't HD) so you'd have to buy a NEW recorder with goodness knows what built-in to "protect" you from yourself. Sure you can watch it in the other room or from your camera or jukebox or network -- until Tuesday when the digital time-stamp expires in every piece of equipment.
Picture this -- someone makes DeHDTV and you have a cracked copy of Buffy on your PC! Yippee! You then go to play it and it is isn't "signed" properly so the HDTV decides not to show it. Or you spoof the signature and the TV talks upstream to report that you are playing it just to verify against the rights database -- oops you don't have that permission today! Blue Screen Of Denial. That's a cable, you know, and not RF.
Looks like a move forward, but I'll have to see...
Trade gas for grease
on
239 MPG Car
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That's why you get a Ford F-250 king cab diesel or any other big diesel thing and convert it to run on french fry grease. That is exactly my plan in the next year or so -- get a used Ford (why Ford? they are common in my neck of the woods (I hate to wait for parts) and my brother-in-law is a Ford mechanic) and do the mods for used grease (my wife works at a culinary school!). ANY diesel vehicle (even BIG OLD CHEVY SUBURBANS if you want to feel tank-like) will do. Mercedes are nice and safe. Escalade schmescalade - get a diesel EXCURSION!!
Considering that used grease is usually free, the $1000 install of the kit should pay for iself in short order -- at a minimum I go 40 miles a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year. At $1.50 a gallon of something (and 15 mpg, though that is optimistic for a big thing) it will pay for the kit in ONE YEAR.
Diesel available at McDonalds
on
239 MPG Car
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
All this whining that biodiesel isn't available -- burn used grease of which there is a HUGE supply: Greasecar.
This is now the third time I've posted about Greasecar (not affiliated in any way, but plan to implement a kit in the the next year or so).
Heard a radio story or two recently about diesel and soot. As clean as they can be (nowadays) from a carbon standpoint they have another bad thing about them: soot. Even if the carbon is reduced the soot is sunlight blocking / reflecting and thus weather affecting (kind of like those contrails) -- so much so that even the diesel-guzzling Europeans are beginning to take notice of the problem. I am not sure if the soot issue is resolved at all with biodiesels or grease cars. Still reseraching that one...
I am also a Vermonter and live not too far from you BUT I can get no high speed services other than a dish. How come you get them and I don't? You are in a major tourist town and near the interstate -- the infra-structure already existed. I am 5 miles from my telco and if it isn't raining my phone line can handle 36kbps. I am using 2 modems and doing modem bonding to get 72kbps when the weather is right. Sometimes with 2 modems I get less than 48kbps...
Why, if VT is in New England and NE has some of the BEST states for Broadband, does broadband suck in this state? Too rural. Density gets intensity from the internet. If you live within a few miles of I-89 or a few choice hubs like B-town or Mont-peculiar then you are set. The rest of the state connects to the internet by smoke signal...
I've researched this thing to death. When I lived in downtown Burlington I had cable and before cable existed I had ISDN. Verizon is down-marketing ISDN so even that is hard to get where I am -- when I had it installed 4 years ago it was a free installation and the monthly fees were okay. Now it is over $250 just to get the line checked -- this is a non-refundable deposit. If the line sucks you just threw $250 into the wood stove. If a repeater is needed then _I_ have to pay for it (a few thou) and the telco owns it. Yeah, right.
I have asked people who have StarBand in VT and the reports are all the same: when it works it is awesome for DLing and surfing (latency issues as all have noted). But pray it doesn't rain, snow, cloud up, get windy, etc. because then it just goes away. And we know the weather in Vermont is always wonderful, right? Look out your window... oh dear...
Even the local StarBand installer told me to wait a while because it just wasn't ready for dependable use (that was over a year ago, though).
Oddly, my dad used to work for WCVT. I still know guys who work there!
Sorry, but in general it is for me. Having to maintain and teach users stuff that is different from what they already use at home and other places is really a problem -- I know, as I've tried and failed miserably.
When I'm at home I use WinOS for games and simplicity -- it is entertainment and not work now. It is a cinch to maintain the home network and keep the Windows Wife happy (all she's ever known and is not really willing to know anything else) since it is the same as what I administer at work.
I'm a busy guy and while I find Slashdot incredibly useful, I just haven't had the time in my life to learn Linux deeply enough to administer it for all the people who rely on me for support. Basically I've gone with what I know best and it has made it easier to solve their problems and answer their questions. As one guy I keep several families (people's homes here) worth of machines running, as well as being MIS guy for a 25 machine office, all by myself (mostly). I would have to check out of a major portion of my life to fill my head with Linux that well. Since I use the Windows stuff, I know it intimately. If I had to know two entire OSes plus perform all my other duties... can I be excused? My brain is full!
It's like the Dvorak vs Qwerty argument -- I'll get there when I have time because it makes sense, but right now I just don't have the time!
Buying second hand is dubious at best. You cheat the artists of money and you are simply pandering to an entirely different middleman who doesn't owe anybody any thing -- he profits off the artist backs more easily than anyone else in the foodchain! You also inflate the market for used sales thereby making it easier for people to spend money on new things (they just made money off you buying their used thing, after all) from which RIAA and MPAA profit. You fed the machine...
I've wrangled with the used concept for years -- buying a used car means I'm not adding a new car to the environment, right? Well, no. I just made it a shitload easier for someone ELSE to add a new car. I don't have an answer yet, but the best I can think of is to buy the most prudent new thing - a NEW environmentally friendly car or a NEW CD from a local source with fewer middlewomen.
Your Baen and donation examples are correct for your ideal -- buying second-hand may more than completely erase the good you are trying to do, however.
Slashdot Mirror
That was one of the most entertaining and interesting reads I've come across in a while.
Here's a clickable link:
Why Your Framerate Affects Jumping
I will acknowledge that calculating back to the big bang is a difficult prospect and, if all those scientists are right, a null prospect as we can not actually destroy matter -- we can only change its hairstyle. It all balances at the big un-bang, supposedly. If all those rabid recylcers can just chill for a few billion years then they'll see the REAL "end of the world," right? Well, I can't wait that long and that's where we differ -- you must have patience immeasurable.
Since both you and I acknowledge that this math is improbable at best then we have to use our best conjecture to engage in a discussion. You will always point out that whatever math I use excludes some prior piece of math before it. Since you will never acknowledge a starting point for the math other than an unachievable one then it is impossible to engage in a discussion with you on the topic -- your mind is already made up.
And I cannot discuss rationally with you if you cannot acknowledge that "impact" is perceived differently by different people and therefore makes math unusable in the discussion anyway. Sure a quick strip mining of an acre will take it out of the productive loop for a couple of decades -- so what? Well you place a different value on impact than I do -- I see those recovering ecosystem decades as loss, you don't. Our math-less math can never be equal if we stick to it that way.
Now if we agree that our basis for "impact" and "value," you may name it "cost" or Homer Simpson" if you so desire, is different then we have a starting point! I might be able, in that regard, to drum up outrage in YOU by increasing your perception of "impact" by discussing productivity over time where the length of time gains value by reducing it. The reverse may also be true, of course. You might convince me that the time factor is so infinitely small that our ant trails in the sand are so far below planetary notice that I could make a lifetime project of spraying DDT 20 hours a day and do no long lasting damage -- she'll recover, good 'ol nature, she will.
Too bad we can't talk about it. We can't even BEGIN the discussion. You mention the evils of motives and supposition whilst simultaneously denouncing all math as ambiguous at best and then you say "Just calculate." I can't even begin to make calculations you'd understand without first discussing values with you and you're not willing to accept either math or values. Nice Catch-22 you've created. Perhaps you are afraid someone will change your mind and you'll acquire some level of guilt about your environmental impact. It's okay. I was, too. But you talk about it and do the best you can. I never enter a conversation unless all parties are willing to change their minds. When they can't change their minds it's called an argument or a lecture. No thanks.
The only math I can offer that is likely undisputable is this: our rate of conversion of existing or regenerating resources into other things of dubious benefit is faster than it once was and in many cases is MUCH faster than natural processes can recover it. It took a lot less time to make and/or power that laptop then it did for the planet to store the needed energy in various forms. It will take time and energy to get it back to its origins. What environmentalists squeak about is just that -- the speed with which we take a normally low-impact resource (million year-old oil or a 10 year old tree) and convert it into something of questionable worth but definitely more toxic for a few months or years then do little to return it to its previous mostly benign state.
But that's a conversation starter with no mathematical operands relating to impossible math so I guess we can't really discuss it. Sorry to have wasted your bandwidth.
Here's a story about this from October 2002.
Here's a link to ribbon speaker tech.
I remember lusting after big flat panel speakers when I was a teen (15 years ago!) because they were cool-looking and were a different technology than a magnet wiggling a cone of some random material. I just love it when people rail about Bose speakers using 20 year-old technology when in fact nearly every speaker you can buy is using the same decades old technology -- the primary difference being WHAT type of cone the magnet is wiggling. Sure, some polymers sound better than some papers but its like the combustion engine - it can only go so far until a new tech replaces it.
Ace905 is correct in this to some degree. If you don't enforce your patent by researching and finding infringers, informing infringers to cease and desist, and ultimately taking infringers to court (costs YOU money to do any of this) then they simply make their infringing product anyways and you lose market share. Then, after some amount of time, you can no longer claim damages back to the beginning of their infringement (some kind of limitation on that if you didn't find and communicate with them early on).
You technically don't lose your patent, true, but you certainly lose the benefit of having the bloody thing to begin with if you don't defend it.
So you make a business decision; research patent validity, apply, and then defend costing $X (lawyers fees at every step of the way here), or release and market spending $X. Reminds me of StarCraft, in a way... Do lawyers play StarCraft? I wouldn't know as I am not one.
Mr Anti-Google
Searched the web for google-watch and his page is the first one and many of the other results refer back to him (just what he wants to have happen, right?). I'm a little confused about his problem...
Meet Mr. Anti-Google The most interesting thing in there to me is that he is not happy about his PageRank score!
But it may be considered not to be fair that she'd have to withdraw from purchasing.
Careful with that -- you'll soon be guaranteeing sales to vendors or guaranteeing stock levels to customers -- neither is even remotely fair.
Especially if learning more was difficult or impossible (can't look on the net if you don't have an OS yet..)
Specious. Even if the only research she had was the outside of the box then she KNEW she was buying something she might not get along with. Which part of "LICENSE AGREEMENT INSIDE" don't you understand? She knew it was in there, could potentially be not what she wanted, and she plopped down $ anyways...
And it didn't. And this was because of a property of the product - the terms.
You're not understanding the basis of the discussion, here. The terms on the box and in the store were GLARINGLY clear -- if you buy this and open it you cannot return it. You cannot use it unless you agree with what's inside. You cannot see what's inside unless you open it. Rather than put the damn thing back on the shelf as a grab bag she didn't want to touch, she FREELY CHOSE to gamble on the license inside. She bought a lottery ticket or a box of chocolates or a magic 8-ball or any number of things where you KNOW from the description of the object that the outcome is not clear. It is really, really simple.
It isn't "not fair" of Microsoft, et al. It is stupid because it will cost them customers. Why is their stupidity in marketing up to a legal challenge?
EVERY good is a "potential lemon". That's why consumers are protected against them. In particular your analogy would only be appropriate if ALL cars were sold with oil spilling out of them, since after all, ALL software has the hidden EULA.
You have twisted my analogy. Not all software has hidden EULAs, by any means. Type any of these into google:
linux license agreement
apple license agreement
windows XP license agreement
The first 2, within 5 or 6 from the top of the search, take you directly to a EULA for an OS.
My analogy was to point out an OBVIOUS lemon which she chose to ignore.
But the shop can't stick up a sign saying "Potentially moldy bread for sale" and then say that any customer who buys a loaf, which later turns out to be moldy, can't return it.
Why the hell not? Ever buy day old bagels? You can't return them because they are stale -- they are sold to you potentially that way! You buy based on potential, knowing they might not be all good. You get a better deal because of the potential. That's the case with the MS box. You buy it KNOWING that it contains something you might not like (it's written right there on the box). If you don't want a potentially pissy license, cough up $10,000 for an unlimited license (or whatever it costs) and step away from the lower-priced licensed deal. I really don't follow your point on this one.
Many Microsoft products don't make that info available, you're right -- sounds like a bad business practice and one that is likely to cost them customers. So don't buy from them. I typed the following into google:
linux license agreement
apple license agreement
windows XP license agreement (XP added to eliminate all the windows 95 references)
I found an OS developer or two who published theirs: RedHat Agreement and Apple OS agreement (PDF). I guess they seem like better companies to buy from.
Simple, really. If you don't like the RIAA and it politics, don't buy Sony CDs. If you don't like Microsoft or Symantec's ham-handed EULA management, don't buy their products. Nothing will break their backs quicker. This silly lawsuit won't do it. The best this lawsuit can hope for, beyond a teeny weeny settlement, is to heighten people's awareness that non-exposed EULAs are dangerous so you should consider other software. If Microsoft doesn't change their practice they will lose business -- it's all about competition.
The only reason to sue them is because they have harmed or wronged you in some way. In this instance they did not harm or wrong anyone who read and even remotely understood the damn box!! Yes, just the box -- I've clarified that to death. That is my ultimate point and the one that will likely win in the courts. A great win would be that the EULA ENCLOSED label will be in big red letters and a copy will be available at the counter, be 25 pages long, and take you a half an hour to understand so you'll compulsion buy anyways to save time. The open box/ no-return policy will likely still stand.
I sent an email to piracy@microsoft.com asking about getting a copy of the EULA. You are exactly right about it not being obvious (if at all) on their web site. After poking around the common email address was that piracy one so I tried that. We'll see...
How I took HP and Microsoft to court and still got no refund. (not wholly applicable, but an interesting read)
As it stands here, this is completely incorrect. As a business, you are legally required to provide refunds for the products you sell, if they are not fit for the purpose for which they are sold.
... almost countered my own argument ... You should be able to return it. I guess the difference is that there is no implied LICENSE with a weed-whacker. You don't have to agree to anything just to use it and no where on the box does it say "You must agree to comply with some obscure and unfathomable document before you whack any weeds." If it did say that then you'd be silly to buy it in the first place.
Touche'. You are correct about offering refunds and my blanket statement is erroneous.
However the product stated its purpose on the box -- a software product that performed X function with an included but hidden license. She did not have to buy it knowing those conditions, yet she did.
The example I use is a weed-whacker: it says on the box that it is dangerous. If, after you open the box and read the full safety considerations, you decide it is too dangerous for you to use --- well, I'll be damned
Vote with your wallet. Don't buy things with EULAs inside.
This should preferably be in writing and signed if clarity is needed in court should a dispute arise.
Signed, you mean like a credit card receipt? She may have paid in cash, true, but a no return policy is bordering on common sense for many things.
Please understand -- I think EULAs suck but I also think this case is frivolous and does not really attack the issue intended to spark glee by the original poster.
Why did your research stop at technical merit? Seems a silly place to stop when you purchase a LICENSED product. What about researching the license BEFORE you purchase? I cannot say it enough -- no one held a gun to yours or her head to force her to plunk the money down on something that was clearly labeled. Your example above is absolutely perfect in illustrating my point -- that's what happens when you make snap or uninformed decisions just because you are standing in the checkout line, actively ignoring any posted signs and BEFORE you've bothered to read and understand the box, and that cash is just burning your wallet to bits. What kind of informed consumer are you?
/. review either, nor can you get the Consumer Reports bulletin (unless it was favorable and included in the marketing). Those are tools that inform you about purchases. Surely you did at LEAST that much research, nay? And yet you missed the whole licensing thing?
/. formula contains ??? as the 2nd to last step, but this is an OLD formula employed for centuries...)
If a package says "May contain nuts," you know you're deathly allergic to nuts but take the gamble that THIS TIME there won't be any, and you eat anyways -- well, it is not the fault of the snack company that your dead.
If the package says "Contains a license agreement that you must agree to, even though we won't show you right now, nyah, nyah, nayh!" and you purchase it hoping that THIS TIME it won't request something ridiculous of you -- well, it is not the fault of the license crafter that you're a gambling man.
Why, as any kind of consumer, can you not walk out the door empty-handed because you don't like the terms of the sale? It seems that you are implying that this woman had no other choice.
Capitalism is based on the notion of an informed consumer making choices in the free marketplace.
Respectfully, I disagree quite heartily with your statement. What you state might be one idealistic version of capitalism. In reality, capitalism is based on the notion that a business with a perceived better product makes more money than the other guy. How the perception is derived I leave to your vivid imagination.
How can she make an informed choice, if she doesn't have the information?
You are assuming she cannot EVER get the information. That is not true -- there are several avenues for her to get the information: the web, snail mail, the telephone. You are annoyed because she cannot get the information EASILY between the software rack and the checkout counter at CompUSA. Well you can't get that
How could this woman not know that EULAs are a part of software? If she has a computer she probably had to agree to several. On the off chance she was buying a gift and did NOT know -- well, sorry lady, but just because you didn't know the speed limit was 25 doesn't make your doing 50 any more legal.
This is a case of opportunity. She'll band a bunch of folks together and hopefully make enough noise to get a settlement in lieu of actually winning. I hope she gets thrown out of court for wasting everyone's time. I positively HATE EULAs, but I also cannot condone what looks like someone attacking a big target to profit.
1. Buy a product without researching it
2. Try to return it because "it ain't right"
3. Sue the pants off SOMEBODY
4. Profit!!!
(I know the usual
That's the whole point. She was NOT "put into the situation." She voluntarily entered the situation with several indicators, of equal or greater size than the text of the EULA, pointing to the end result she suffered. She could have chosen to NOT purchase at any time and learn more about what it was she was buying. She didn't. The law protects against stupidity only so far.
Another point is that the goods you sell have to be fit for the purpose for which they're sold.
The purpose for which it is sold is this "To perform some task within the terms of use which you must agree to, but cannot yet see." That is written on the box. Had she accepted the terms it would have performed the purpose for which it was sold.
You sold her the license. So "no returns on opened software" doesn't affect her...
Specious at best. The item is sold by the vendor as is. Once opened it cannot be re-sold as what intelligent customer would purchase an opened box of software knowing that the license (visible or not) may or may not have been used and thus invalidate their purchase. It's like underwear -- no one wants to buy, knowingly or unknowingly, that which has been used and might therefore have legal or lethal consequences.
And she could easily argue that if the license isn't acceptable to her, then the license you sold her isn't fit for the purpose for which it was sold (to be accepted by her)...
Nope. The packaging that said "LICENSE INSIDE" was acceptable to her at the time of purchase and therefore it DID fit the purpose for which it was sold. It was sold as an item with an included, but not viewable, license.
She knowingly and in full capacity bought a potential LEMON. She choose to ignore the oil spilling out of the bottom of the car, then tried to return it because the engine made funny noises.
She can't choose to ignore the outside and then complain about the inside. If the bread has MOLD ON IT when you buy it AND IT SAYS SO ON THE LABEL "Moldy Bread for sale" you can't return it because the fluff beyond the crust was also moldy.
She bought the box knowing that the terms were INSIDE THE BOX when she KNEW SHE COULDN'T SEE THEM! Would you buy a car with the odometer covered? No? You'd buy from another dealer! You'd buy a different product!
If someone walks up to you and says, "Hey, AC, gimme 50 cents and I'll give you whatever's in this bag -- could be a winning lottery ticket! But you hafta do what's written on the little slip that's inside. No! I won't tell you what it says. It could say, 'Look behind you for another free million dollars,' or it could say, 'Shove this broken glass up your ass.' Whattaya say man?"
Do you buy it? Do you gamble? GREAT! Then purchase things with EULAs that you can't read without opening a non-returnable box, or buy them KNOWING that you might be in disagreement and use the damn software anyway just like the rest of the planet.
IANAL nor do I operate a retail operation in California, however I frequently purchase from establishments which have no return policies.
If she prevails it will be out of sheer dumb luck or exceptional lawyering -- she had many opportunities to understand the deal before she left the store.
Don't get me wrong -- I think most EULAs are not worth the paper or bits they are stored on, nor do they make any kind of sense. I just don't think THIS case is going to help get fairer licensing. Best the class action can hope for is to get reimbursed for some percentage of their purchases (did they use or get benefit from the software in any fashion?) and the EULA MIGHT get to the outside of the box, though more likely big red letters will be on the box stating that the EULA is still inside and buyer beware again...
So how, exactly, is she supposed to find out the terms of the EULA without opening the box?
By NOT purchasing at this moment and doing research or buying a competing product that has a EULA she can read on the spot. Simple really.
And then what is she supposed to do if she doesn't accept the EULA terms?
She accepted the terms of the box when she purchased it. Those terms were essentially, "You may not like what you have to agree to in here so consider that before you buy," and, "No returns on opened software." She purchases other software that gives her a reasonable opportunity to read the license. She read the box. She knew the license was inside and could be NOT what she wanted. She bought it anyways. If you don't like grab-bags, don't buy them. That's the point here.
Why is it apparent that she can't read?
If she can read then she chose to ignore several written things: signs, receipts, and boxes -- all of which told her EXACTLY how the story would play out BEFORE she left the store.
NOT COMPUSA's problem. Maybe not MS/SYM either.
1. Woman goes to CompUSA which has signs AND printed receipts saying NO RETURNS ON OPENED SOFTWARE which she refuses to read or accept (why would her implied acceptance of a EULA be any legally stronger?). She stills signs a check or credit card receipt or personally hands over cash to consummate the deal.
2. Women opens box which says, on the outside, you have to agree to the EULA on the inside. It is apparent at this point that she cannot actually read at all. Had the EULA actually been there she would not (could not?) have read it as evidenced by her actions thus far.
3. EULA contains terms that are onerous -- oh, NOW she can read.
4. She returns to vendor who points at the receipts and signs (which she again apparently cannot read or refuses to accept, just like the EULA) and smiles. She was warned. She didn't take the warning.
Caveat Emptor.
When she voluntarily PAID MONEY, she accepted the terms -- no refunds.
I cannot accept that CompUSA screwed her here. It sounds like CompUSA operated within their rights. As a business I can offer NO refunds whenever I want -- you may choose to shop elsewhere and I accept that. It's called business.
Now if CompUSA signed something as a Microsoft vendor that said they would accept Microsoft's refunds then CompUSA is screwed. If Microsoft accepts that the signature of CompUSA is meaningless and they can renege on the refund by posting NO REFUND signs then MS operates as if agreements mean nothing -- how handy!
What is more likely is that the refund should be sought from Microsoft if the box says (as my Win2K box does) "If you don't agree then promptly return for a refund." Doesn't say WHO is on the hook, but I would accept, annoyingly, that it really might not be the vendor!
If the box says "Seek a refund from the vendor" then the vendor STILL has a right to not offer one if they have no other agreements (pending local laws) AND Microsoft is off the hook! Double-extra-spicy Caveat Emptor. Don't compulsion buy anything!
Strip naked with your friends and commit barbarous acts in the vent system of the battle school.
Sure the thing will help you burn fat, but most games aren't marketed with a focus on health. They are marketed 2 ways: long-term playability OR alternate reality where you are a super-human demi-god and not the flabby/wimpy/pre-adult guy you actually are. You achieve demi-goddedness with hand-eye coordination only and not actually being Bruce Jenner (just dated myself right there didn't I...)
A 5 hour death-match on a bicycle? Yeah right. _I_ would die! The hand cramps and back-aches are bad enough! A 12-year-old putting in an entire weekend on bicycle Zelda -- HAHAHAHAHA! Pedalling for 40 hours to complete the entire BarCraft extended mission pack before final exams? That's an emergency room visit, people. Good luck marketing THAT sucker! This is a niche market at best.
The driving game concept sounds great -- until you are so physically tired you can't win anymore (insert your own pain threshold number of minutes) and are getting further and further behind. You then switch back to the hand controller and suddenly you can win again -- immediate and repeatable gratification so why go back to the bike? You could play Quake with a 250lb mouse to build up your forearms -- but I play Quake to kick some ass, folks, so bring it on, you fraggable rock! I have picked a variety of controllers over the years to make my game play easier, not harder! If the controller gets in the way of my gaming experience, I give it to my enemies.
The marketing would have to be EXTREMELY clever to make you feel like you WIN at the end of EVERY exercise session. The game would actually have to do that, probably. Set a 30 minute workout with a graduated system that, if you perform even a fraction of a percent better than your last game, guarantees a first place finish. It must pit you against yourself! If it pits you against folk around the world, well either you're a pro athlete or a great hardware/sensor hack to stay on top and that's a pretty small market.
Another programming/marketing strategy would be to make it such that your performance on the bike gets you extended play time with the controller. You bike for 15 minutes in a little "pre-game" scenario that is always a little different and performance-based as I described above (do the same or better each time to "win"), you get to play something else for 2 hours. If this were actually a POWER-generation system that charged a battery that powered the console it would have environmental benefit as well!
It is a neat idea, but very limited to those who actually want a pretty interactive picture to help them burn fat in the privacy of their homes (I would!), have the console for which it is designed (I don't), and don't mind the concept of being a loser when you're tired (I mind).
I quote:
...
"But a continuous consumption of datareduced audio could possibly lead to fatal consequences..."
You mean if I use one of those karaoke voice removers from the 70's that I could DIE? (I mean from other than hurled rotten fruit).
And all those tapes I recorded in Dolby B!? I won't live to be 30!!
And the phone!! My god, man, the phone!!! IT IS A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!! Not only do they compress your voice and squirt it down little wires and fibres (and even through the air) but they CHARGE you for the PRIVILEDGE!! Now I KNOW the Illuiminati exist...
And let's not even TALK about the crappy signal to noise ratio of FM radio!!! WE ARE DOOMED!!!!
Interesting digital mind ejaculation he dabbled in without using a single microphone to qualitatively note anything. Those little flapping magnets and paper cone thingies produce ANALOG sound, anways
Big deal, the TV can show you a digital picture and has a firewire port. What are you going to hook up to that firewire port? A SONY recorder? A PHILIPS recorder? A Palladium PC? They'll get their DRM on the back-end. Remember, they make the equipment and want to sell it -- they agree to nothing unless it is profitable (thay ain't doin' this because /.'ers want a prettier picture...)
It will be up to some hard-working programmer to even figure out what they are doing in the data stream and then deal with the wrath of the DMCA.
An awful lot of ambiguous things in there: "consumers can hook up everything and the equipment will ALLOW viewing elsewhere" -- at the same quality level? At the time of my choosing? The content I wish (ad-free if I want)?
AFAIK you would not be able to hook any of this up to any existing firewire recorders (Canon and Sony cameras for instance as they aren't HD) so you'd have to buy a NEW recorder with goodness knows what built-in to "protect" you from yourself. Sure you can watch it in the other room or from your camera or jukebox or network -- until Tuesday when the digital time-stamp expires in every piece of equipment.
Picture this -- someone makes DeHDTV and you have a cracked copy of Buffy on your PC! Yippee! You then go to play it and it is isn't "signed" properly so the HDTV decides not to show it. Or you spoof the signature and the TV talks upstream to report that you are playing it just to verify against the rights database -- oops you don't have that permission today! Blue Screen Of Denial. That's a cable, you know, and not RF.
Looks like a move forward, but I'll have to see...
That's why you get a Ford F-250 king cab diesel or any other big diesel thing and convert it to run on french fry grease. That is exactly my plan in the next year or so -- get a used Ford (why Ford? they are common in my neck of the woods (I hate to wait for parts) and my brother-in-law is a Ford mechanic) and do the mods for used grease (my wife works at a culinary school!). ANY diesel vehicle (even BIG OLD CHEVY SUBURBANS if you want to feel tank-like) will do. Mercedes are nice and safe. Escalade schmescalade - get a diesel EXCURSION!!
Considering that used grease is usually free, the $1000 install of the kit should pay for iself in short order -- at a minimum I go 40 miles a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year. At $1.50 a gallon of something (and 15 mpg, though that is optimistic for a big thing) it will pay for the kit in ONE YEAR.
All this whining that biodiesel isn't available -- burn used grease of which there is a HUGE supply: Greasecar.
This is now the third time I've posted about Greasecar (not affiliated in any way, but plan to implement a kit in the the next year or so).
Heard a radio story or two recently about diesel and soot. As clean as they can be (nowadays) from a carbon standpoint they have another bad thing about them: soot. Even if the carbon is reduced the soot is sunlight blocking / reflecting and thus weather affecting (kind of like those contrails) -- so much so that even the diesel-guzzling Europeans are beginning to take notice of the problem. I am not sure if the soot issue is resolved at all with biodiesels or grease cars. Still reseraching that one...
Vermont ranks 48th in the nation as far as broadband. Read this report The Digital Economy - Broadband Telecommunications
... oh dear ...
I am also a Vermonter and live not too far from you BUT I can get no high speed services other than a dish. How come you get them and I don't? You are in a major tourist town and near the interstate -- the infra-structure already existed. I am 5 miles from my telco and if it isn't raining my phone line can handle 36kbps. I am using 2 modems and doing modem bonding to get 72kbps when the weather is right. Sometimes with 2 modems I get less than 48kbps...
Why, if VT is in New England and NE has some of the BEST states for Broadband, does broadband suck in this state? Too rural. Density gets intensity from the internet. If you live within a few miles of I-89 or a few choice hubs like B-town or Mont-peculiar then you are set. The rest of the state connects to the internet by smoke signal...
I've researched this thing to death. When I lived in downtown Burlington I had cable and before cable existed I had ISDN. Verizon is down-marketing ISDN so even that is hard to get where I am -- when I had it installed 4 years ago it was a free installation and the monthly fees were okay. Now it is over $250 just to get the line checked -- this is a non-refundable deposit. If the line sucks you just threw $250 into the wood stove. If a repeater is needed then _I_ have to pay for it (a few thou) and the telco owns it. Yeah, right.
I have asked people who have StarBand in VT and the reports are all the same: when it works it is awesome for DLing and surfing (latency issues as all have noted). But pray it doesn't rain, snow, cloud up, get windy, etc. because then it just goes away. And we know the weather in Vermont is always wonderful, right? Look out your window
Even the local StarBand installer told me to wait a while because it just wasn't ready for dependable use (that was over a year ago, though).
Oddly, my dad used to work for WCVT. I still know guys who work there!
Sorry, but in general it is for me. Having to maintain and teach users stuff that is different from what they already use at home and other places is really a problem -- I know, as I've tried and failed miserably.
... can I be excused? My brain is full!
When I'm at home I use WinOS for games and simplicity -- it is entertainment and not work now. It is a cinch to maintain the home network and keep the Windows Wife happy (all she's ever known and is not really willing to know anything else) since it is the same as what I administer at work.
I'm a busy guy and while I find Slashdot incredibly useful, I just haven't had the time in my life to learn Linux deeply enough to administer it for all the people who rely on me for support. Basically I've gone with what I know best and it has made it easier to solve their problems and answer their questions. As one guy I keep several families (people's homes here) worth of machines running, as well as being MIS guy for a 25 machine office, all by myself (mostly). I would have to check out of a major portion of my life to fill my head with Linux that well. Since I use the Windows stuff, I know it intimately. If I had to know two entire OSes plus perform all my other duties
It's like the Dvorak vs Qwerty argument -- I'll get there when I have time because it makes sense, but right now I just don't have the time!
Buying second hand is dubious at best. You cheat the artists of money and you are simply pandering to an entirely different middleman who doesn't owe anybody any thing -- he profits off the artist backs more easily than anyone else in the foodchain! You also inflate the market for used sales thereby making it easier for people to spend money on new things (they just made money off you buying their used thing, after all) from which RIAA and MPAA profit. You fed the machine...
I've wrangled with the used concept for years -- buying a used car means I'm not adding a new car to the environment, right? Well, no. I just made it a shitload easier for someone ELSE to add a new car. I don't have an answer yet, but the best I can think of is to buy the most prudent new thing - a NEW environmentally friendly car or a NEW CD from a local source with fewer middlewomen.
Your Baen and donation examples are correct for your ideal -- buying second-hand may more than completely erase the good you are trying to do, however.