What they said they wanted to use this for is satellite communications. You can send an encrypt message to a satellite and it either does something with it (ie command) or it sends another encrypted message to another land station somewhere else in the world.
And no.. I don't think this is ever going to be used at any time for civilian use. The technology is too costly and also typically civilians don't need that level of encryption.
Quantum computers will probably, within the next 20 or 30 years, render public-private key cryptography useless. Once that happens, only those who can afford Quantum cryptography will have the ability to communicate securely.
I don't understand how you are linking Quantum computers to the end of public/private key cryptography? Did you mean Quantum cryptography? Quantum cryptography only specifies a way to transfer a message in code. It does nothing in regards to breaking prior code. It still takes a great deal of resources and time to break message in public/private key code
I agree to an extent. However, there is one important aspect that many people do not realize is that compatibility is only part of the issue. The key selling point of an OSS office suite is the relatively low cost of ownership. But to calculate this total cost of ownership, you need to factor in a number of other variables. The most important, as you mentioned, is compatibility. If a person is going to spend 20 hours writing a report, does he have to spend another 5 hours to get it to a readable format for his boss? (Getting your boss to switch to your software is out of the question in many environments) Now the reason why MS Office is so popular is that...it is worth the extra $200 that you have to spend to save a couple hours here and a couple hours there per project.
I think the most important thing that OSS Office suites need to focus on is compatibility with the majority of the office suite out there (in this case MS Office). This doesn't mean that you need to run the file through another program to convert it or have to do something different so that it is compatible with MS Office...it should just be. This will wrestle some users away from the grips of MS
Secondly, [I think this is something that everyone overlooks], consumers don't like change. Even a change in a look and feel is a drastic difference. One thing that I still haven't found in the Linux Office Suites is the whole MS Word/Office look and feel. The pulldown menus and the icons just don't look and feel right. Once you get people to use your software and not realize that they are not using MS Word, you've succeeded in achieving what you need to do.
Once you get critical mass, you can then define your own look and feel. Until then...you need to imitate...
I read in some old statistical handbook, that in order to gain 97-98% correct data entries, _two_ people should enter the same data.
You may be right..but Shouldn't it be 3 people? I mean, how does it help that 2 people have differing numbers? You still need to spend time to figure out which is right. Now if you had three, the two that had the similar input should be the correct one. The occurence of all three being different is significantly less than 1 person being wrong.
The trend nowadays is that a majority of major corporations are using offshore call centers, specifically located in India, to handle most of the calls. Talking to these people, you wouldn't even realize that they are not American. The reason this trend is picking up is that India has a great abundance of cheap labor and has a high population of highly technical people. In addition, it is rather cheap to do this with Voice Over IP. Typically what happens with these tech support is that, as many of you have mentioned, they read from a well prepared script. Any question that they can't handle, they pass on to "Second Level Support"... ie back to the real support at the home office.
What you say it true... BUT simply becuase we import so much from China doesn't mean that there aren't smaller countries ready to line up around the block waiting to get thier piece of the pie. Right now, we give huge concessions to China economically, but no becuase we have to. If China were suddenly out of the picture, it wouldn't be more than a week before all our little plastic American flags were stamped "Made in Chad" instead of "Made in China". Cheap labor is a easy to find in this world.
I don't think it's as easy as you make it out to be. One thing about capitalism is that companies are not owned by the government and are not run by the government. For them to operate as a single entity is almost a miracle. It comes at a great initial cost for a company to move their operations elsewhere. Do you think a company like Gap or Hanes is able to do something like that overnight? No. Ok, maybe it takes them a couple of weeks at best to do so. But think about the smaller companies. Not all companies out there that do business with foreign nations is a Fortune 100 company. A small T-shirt printing company in Omaha, Nebraska will not be able to do such a dramatic shift. Do you think the administration will take such a stance against the companies that support them? [Corporate lobbyist are quite powerful in DC]
On the other hand, from China's point of view, we are absolutly vital. If they aren't sellin thier laptops and printer cables to the US, then who are they going to sell to? Uganda? Iraq? Not likely. The "free world" is the only place that can afford all that stuff.
Do you think we are the _only_ consumers of east asian products? You don't think there are other nations out there that will buy the products? Think Japan, Taiwan, England, France, Saudi Arabia, etc..
Look, the fact is, in the end, it will end up hurting the US more than it hurts China. China has a great amount of cheap labor and the total cost of living is significantly less than it is here. Are you willing to pay $5 more per shirt that you wear? Are you willing to pay $10 more per 100 pack of CDr? The American people as a whole is not happy to pay a few cents more at the gasoline pump nonetheless a few dollars more in other products.
clogger routers worth having trade restrictions imposed by the US and it's allies, decimating thier economy
What many people don't realize when they say this is how closely tied the US economy is to China and eastern Asias. Do people realize how much we actually import from there? If there was a trade restriction put in place, it would hurt you as much as it hurts them. Just look at your computer in front of you...how much of that is made in Taiwan or China, etc. How about the clothes that you are wearing (look at the tag now) where is that made? How about the food imports? etc...
On the Middle East though, I think that the main reason that Bush wanted to stay out of the middle east was to avoid becoming the world's police force. That was the main problem with Clinton's foreign policy. Civil wars will happen, and that can't be helped. You can't be the mediator in every conflict and you can't stop all the violence in the world. I don't see why the US has to weigh in on every issue.
I agree with you. However, there is one additional thing. The US cannot say they want to be involved in certain issues (that other people don't want the US to be involved in) but not be involved in others. You can't be a "police force" when its only self-serving. My case in point is specifically in a couple of recent events:
Remember when Bush said, "You are with us or against us"? I think that is an overly simplistic statement in that you either help the US or you are our enemy. Why should other countries come to the aid of the US when they need help, but when the other countries need help, they turn their backs. There are many instances where the US have refused to help due to the fact that doing so will not benefit the US.
Secondly, the US should not be meddling in the affairs of other countries that lead to instability in the world. Remember a guy named Osama Binladin and "Afghan terrorists? They were products of the US CIA op to hold back the Russia from taking over Afghanistan. Should the US have been involved in that? Maybe it was getting all caught up in the Cold War and stuff like that... I'll give that to you...people make mistakes in life..plus that was a long time ago...
More recently though...there are direct evidence that the current Bush administration was involved in the current ousting of the President of Venezuala. The biggest promoter of democracy (the US) wanted to oust a democratically elected president. I had read somewhere that the new president wanted to implement policies that would help the Venezualan people but would hurt Chevron, a major oil supplier to the US.
That's the hypocrisy of US foreign policy. There are many cases in which the US does things to hurt other people and to destabilize the world for the benefit of the US.
Terrorism has become so broadly defined to incorporate everyone's common enemy to rally against. Without these "terrorist," (whether real or made up) the current administration would not be able to gain as much support as it does now. By invoking this fear in people, they can get people to support their cause. Would they have been able to take away as much of the people's civil rights without the idea of terrorism?
I'd like to see who all is back from the Reagan era. I know Cheney and Rumsfeld. Admitidly two very high ranking officials, but who else. It seems a bit generous to say "a good majority
Mitch Daniels - Office of Management and Budget Director
Condoleezza Rice - Foreign Policy Advisor
Robert Zoellick - US Trade Representative
Andrew Card - Chief of Staff
Richard A. Clarke - Special Advisor for Cyberspace Security
Robert Joseph - Senior Director for Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation and Homeland Defense
Elliot Abrams - Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights,and International Operations
Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State (from former Bush Admin)
Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense
Gary R. Edson - Deputy Assistant for International Economic Affairs and Deputy National Security Advisor
William Howard Taft, IV - Legal Advisor to the Secretary of State
Is that enough for a majority? It seems like most of the major positions are carried over from the Reagan (or Bush, Sr)'s administration.
Just when did the US create a situation in the middle east? Look at Britain that created Israel. Look at the arab countries for attacking Israel. Look at Israel for rocketing innocent people. Look at childish leaders that can't agree on how to meet for peace, let alone discuss peace terms. There are lots of people to blame for the problems but hardly the US, unless giving hope of some sort of peace settlement is a bad thing.
I agree with you that everyone has had at least a hand in this cookie jar. But what lead to the recent escalation was the fact that Bush turned a cold shoulder when suicide bombers were blowing up Israel and for the first couple of days of Israel's incursion, Bush did not give a public statement telling either sides to back down. (as reported in Time Magazine and LA Time.
You must remember that Bush came into the White House saying outright that Clinton's mistake was in meddling with the affairs of the Middle East. Up until 2 weeks ago, he pretty much wanted to ignore the issues...which lead to mass confusion on Bush's stance Which Sharon took as an OK to advance onto Palestine territory. Now recently, Powell went over there to try to resolve things, but his mission was considered by many as a failure. Both sides have lost respect for the US as a mediator.
Bush does not really care or want to be involved in the middle east. It's quite a tangled web. On one hand, part of his administration wants to fully support Israel. But on the other hand, if he does support Israel, the entire Islamic world will come down upon him. Even today's news, the Saudi Prince (our supposed Ally) just threatened to cut off ties to the US if the US does not take a harder stance on Israel. In addition, Egypt (another ally) is threatening to go to war again Israel once it gets enough financial support.
Three weeks ago Dr Barbara Rosenberg - an acknowledged authority on US bio-defence - claimed the FBI is dragging its feet because an arrest would be embarrassing to the US authorities. Tonight on Newsnight, she goes further...suggesting there could have been a secret CIA field project to test the practicalities of sending anthrax through the mail - whose top scientist went badly off the rails...
DR BARBARA ROSENBERG:
FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS:
Some very expert field person would have been given this job and it would have been left to him to decide exactly how to carry it out. The result might have been a project gone badly awry if he decided to use it for his own purposes and target the media and the senate for his own motives as not intended by the govt project...but this is a possibility that I think needs to be considered
At least try to have your conspiracy theories make some kind of sense. Exactly what kind of government test can go awry, resulting in anthrax being mailed to US senators?
Three weeks ago Dr Barbara Rosenberg - an acknowledged authority on US bio-defence - claimed the FBI is dragging its feet because an arrest would be embarrassing to the US authorities. Tonight on Newsnight, she goes further...suggesting there could have been a secret CIA field project to test the practicalities of sending anthrax through the mail - whose top scientist went badly off the rails...
DR BARBARA ROSENBERG:
FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS:
Some very expert field person would have been given this job and it would have been left to him to decide exactly how to carry it out. The result might have been a project gone badly awry if he decided to use it for his own purposes and target the media and the senate for his own motives as not intended by the govt project...but this is a possibility that I think needs to be considered
I totally agree with you. With the current administration finding itself in a difficult situation (is Arafat a terrorist or "harboring terrorist? if so, why isn't the US arresting him?) And the administration constantly flipping back and forth on the issue isn't helping the situation much. The entire middle east part of the world has lost respect for the US. Just today, the Saudi Arabian (our so call "friends/allies") was just in Crawford, Tx making demands that the US stop backing Israel if we still want oil from S.A.. In addition, the Egyptians are ready to go to war with Israel.
Unfortunately what the administration has found is that it has opened up Pandora's box and does not know how to handle it anymore. And like you said, it has fallen back 15 years to Reaganism. The thing is, a good majority of the administration are from the Reagan era. It is much easier to lead a country back during the Cold War than it is now. When you know who your enemies are and can rally support against a common enemy, you can pretty much push anything through legistlation. In the past 6 months or so, the administration has tried to find a common enemy (first terrorists, but since that is a broad term, moved onto Usama Bin ladin, and since we can't find him, moved onto al Qaeda then Taliban, etc, etc...)
[Note, this is not troll or flamebait, please read through the entire thing before you decide]
Don't you realize the Microsoft, although they have not produced the best possible software, has done a great deal to get the computer industry to where it is now. Almost every hardware and software manufacturer has benefited from Microsoft bringing to the world OS's that unify the industry, software to make people realize that they need a computer, and other stuff.
I am willing to say that hardware companies benefitted a great deal from what MS has done. It is only because of Microsoft that Intel and AMD (and other PC hardware companies)have been able to achieve what they have achieved to this day. It is only because of MS that computers are so prevalent worldwide. Why, you ask? Imagine you are AMD (or Intel or ATI), your role is to maximize profit and lower costs. Let's just say that a certain chip design was specially optimized for OS1, another for OS2, another for OS3, it would cost you a great deal of money to reach all the customers. It's not just a matter of manufacturing [different molds and different factory lines would have to be used to produce each], but there is increase cost in research and development, in addition to more cost of supporting each chip (ie drivers, help desk, etc). So you say that you should produce only one chip that is not optimized for a certain OS? Well, all the individual niche companies would crush you in competition since their designs are better for certain OS's whereas you are a jack of all trades.
Software companies benefit for the same reason too. Would you rather have 5 teams working on ports of an application to OS1, OS2, OS3... or would you rather have one big team working on developing your application?
The consumer benefitted a great deal from the MS OS Monopoly. When your 70 year old grandmother goes out to buy a computer, because a majority of them are running Windows, as long as she buys a PC with Windows, she knows that what she does will be compatible with her grandson, her neighbor, etc... Businesses reduce costs buy being able to have documents be compatible.
Now, I agree, MS Windows is not the best of the best. In fact, there are many problems with it. However, it is important to realize that fact that we have a unified industry rather than a fragmented one. In the end, it helps out everyone involved. [Now, I agree, it's not always good to do something because other people are doing it...but the alternative to this is even worse.]
But yea, for my B-school class "Managing Internet Technology and the Venture Capital Process" midterm, the professor had ActiveBuddy come give us their pitch and presentation. We had to analyze the company and decide whether or not we, as VCs, would invest in them.
My analysis was that the market was not big enough for VCs to invest in ActiveBuddy.com. Direct IM advertising and information bots is still a rather unproven technology; there is no evidence that direct IM advertising or even IM information retrieval (movie time, directions, etc) will ever be profitable. In addition, part of their business is to provide a professional service to other companies to build info-bots. The problem with this is that unlike software, info-bots are rather customized to the client needs. It's not a build once, sell many product. If so much time must be spent on each client, it cuts into their profit margins. Lastly, it is always dangerous to build an entire company around a third party network/product. AOL could easily just say that it doesn't like ActiveBuddy anymore and block all their connections. The company would be out of business [BTW: I got an A+]
On another note, I remember seeing SmarterChild being a huge fad when it first appeared. I had realized that not only was it a intelligent bot, but it was also tracking all conversations you have with the bot and recording your SN. In the same way that you wouldn't want to give your SN to a spammer, you shouldn't provide the bot with your SN. One of these days, it's going to use that massive list of SNs and "spam" your SN.
That said, I still don't think the company should be held liable for content that it didn't authorize and is against
company policy...
If you read the links on my parent post, Company Policies are the only things that can prevent a company from being targetted. If an employee acted against the policy, then they are considered a rogue employee and the company is responsible for punishing them and the target of the lawsuit goes to the employee. However, in this case, it didn't seem like there was a company policy to ban MP3s
But people like you (and there are millions on the internet) put these companies in a precarious situation. They know they need to change their business model, but because of people like you, they can't. With the current user mindset, no business online can make a profit (short of the few leaders in the market).
Second of all...we're not talking about spam. That is a totally separate topic. We're talking about tracking your usage and customize your user experience with your prior experiences/preferences.
If that's the case...aren't software just data also? So in other words, you are saying that it should be legal to pirate software also.
How far does it go? How bout movies? Data? Pirate that too. Your credit card number...data...hand it over. etc..etc..etc..
My point is this. The RIAA isn't going after the MP3 standard or any data standard, but rather the actual music itself. That is a person's piece of art and you have made an illegal copy of it.
They have the same power as the BSA, which is to say that they have no legal powers. What they do have though is the ability to sue you causing you to spend a good deal of money to defend or you can settle out of court.
In this case, I think the RIAA did the right thing. They went after the illegal copyrighted files on the network. On the otherhand when they are going after Napster, Kazaa, or whatever.. They have very little case. Napster is a tool, like a gun. And as the NRA often says, "guns don't kill, people do.." blah blah...
[Disclaimer: I'm not trying to equate guns to napster, but this was just to prove a point]
I believe you are wrong on your analysis. IANAL. There was a ruling within the last couple of years saying that the employer is responsible for all things on the network.
For example, if an employee were to forward around a racist joke. [Let's just say for this scenario it's about Green People]. A employee that is offended by the joke doesn't sue the people that is forwarding it, but rather the employer for creating a "unsafe" [I know that's not the right term..but there's another legal term] condition in the workplace. [Check Here for Other Related Situations]
Scenario 2: If an employee installs a piece of software that the employer doesn't own the license to, the person that is responsible is the employer even if he is not aware of it. [Read More Here]
Scenario 3: If a hacker sets up a warez site on one of your server, you are not technically liable, but the FBI can come in with an warrant and confiscate the server without giving you an opportunity backup all the data that you need from that server. [Operation Bandwidth]
Basically my point is this, the employer is ultimately responsible for all employees and equipment onsite. 1) If they are taking IP claims to all the work that you do on the office computers, they should also be liable for all the bad things that you do. 2) Ultimately, the employer owns all the equipment and must be actively enforcing the rules.
Slashdot Mirror
What they said they wanted to use this for is satellite communications. You can send an encrypt message to a satellite and it either does something with it (ie command) or it sends another encrypted message to another land station somewhere else in the world.
And no.. I don't think this is ever going to be used at any time for civilian use. The technology is too costly and also typically civilians don't need that level of encryption.
Or link Quantum Cryptography to something like abortion or stem cell research or human cloning...
EarthMan153: Hi, we're scientist from earth looking for intelligient beings...
SpaceMan6969: Hi, I'm 163/f. do you cyber?
I agree to an extent. However, there is one important aspect that many people do not realize is that compatibility is only part of the issue. The key selling point of an OSS office suite is the relatively low cost of ownership. But to calculate this total cost of ownership, you need to factor in a number of other variables. The most important, as you mentioned, is compatibility. If a person is going to spend 20 hours writing a report, does he have to spend another 5 hours to get it to a readable format for his boss? (Getting your boss to switch to your software is out of the question in many environments) Now the reason why MS Office is so popular is that...it is worth the extra $200 that you have to spend to save a couple hours here and a couple hours there per project.
I think the most important thing that OSS Office suites need to focus on is compatibility with the majority of the office suite out there (in this case MS Office). This doesn't mean that you need to run the file through another program to convert it or have to do something different so that it is compatible with MS Office...it should just be. This will wrestle some users away from the grips of MS
Secondly, [I think this is something that everyone overlooks], consumers don't like change. Even a change in a look and feel is a drastic difference. One thing that I still haven't found in the Linux Office Suites is the whole MS Word/Office look and feel. The pulldown menus and the icons just don't look and feel right. Once you get people to use your software and not realize that they are not using MS Word, you've succeeded in achieving what you need to do.
Once you get critical mass, you can then define your own look and feel. Until then...you need to imitate...
I forgot to mention that major users of offshore call centers are Dell, IBM, and some major law firms...
The trend nowadays is that a majority of major corporations are using offshore call centers, specifically located in India, to handle most of the calls. Talking to these people, you wouldn't even realize that they are not American. The reason this trend is picking up is that India has a great abundance of cheap labor and has a high population of highly technical people. In addition, it is rather cheap to do this with Voice Over IP. Typically what happens with these tech support is that, as many of you have mentioned, they read from a well prepared script. Any question that they can't handle, they pass on to "Second Level Support" ... ie back to the real support at the home office.
Do you think we are the _only_ consumers of east asian products? You don't think there are other nations out there that will buy the products? Think Japan, Taiwan, England, France, Saudi Arabia, etc..
Look, the fact is, in the end, it will end up hurting the US more than it hurts China. China has a great amount of cheap labor and the total cost of living is significantly less than it is here. Are you willing to pay $5 more per shirt that you wear? Are you willing to pay $10 more per 100 pack of CDr? The American people as a whole is not happy to pay a few cents more at the gasoline pump nonetheless a few dollars more in other products.
clogger routers worth having trade restrictions imposed by the US and it's allies, decimating thier economy
What many people don't realize when they say this is how closely tied the US economy is to China and eastern Asias. Do people realize how much we actually import from there? If there was a trade restriction put in place, it would hurt you as much as it hurts them. Just look at your computer in front of you...how much of that is made in Taiwan or China, etc. How about the clothes that you are wearing (look at the tag now) where is that made? How about the food imports? etc...
Remember when Bush said, "You are with us or against us"? I think that is an overly simplistic statement in that you either help the US or you are our enemy. Why should other countries come to the aid of the US when they need help, but when the other countries need help, they turn their backs. There are many instances where the US have refused to help due to the fact that doing so will not benefit the US.
Secondly, the US should not be meddling in the affairs of other countries that lead to instability in the world. Remember a guy named Osama Binladin and "Afghan terrorists? They were products of the US CIA op to hold back the Russia from taking over Afghanistan. Should the US have been involved in that? Maybe it was getting all caught up in the Cold War and stuff like that... I'll give that to you...people make mistakes in life..plus that was a long time ago...
More recently though...there are direct evidence that the current Bush administration was involved in the current ousting of the President of Venezuala. The biggest promoter of democracy (the US) wanted to oust a democratically elected president. I had read somewhere that the new president wanted to implement policies that would help the Venezualan people but would hurt Chevron, a major oil supplier to the US.
That's the hypocrisy of US foreign policy. There are many cases in which the US does things to hurt other people and to destabilize the world for the benefit of the US.
- These things are a menace on the sidewalk, period.
- MP3s are ILLEGAL, period!
- People don't kill, the guns do...
- Skateboards are a menace, period.
etc..etc..Look, the horse and buggy riders were saying the same things about cars years and years ago.
Terrorism has become so broadly defined to incorporate everyone's common enemy to rally against. Without these "terrorist," (whether real or made up) the current administration would not be able to gain as much support as it does now. By invoking this fear in people, they can get people to support their cause. Would they have been able to take away as much of the people's civil rights without the idea of terrorism?
- Mitch Daniels - Office of Management and Budget Director
- Condoleezza Rice - Foreign Policy Advisor
- Robert Zoellick - US Trade Representative
- Andrew Card - Chief of Staff
- Richard A. Clarke - Special Advisor for Cyberspace Security
- Robert Joseph - Senior Director for Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation and Homeland Defense
- Elliot Abrams - Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights,and International Operations
- Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State (from former Bush Admin)
- Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense
- Gary R. Edson - Deputy Assistant for International Economic Affairs and Deputy National Security Advisor
- William Howard Taft, IV - Legal Advisor to the Secretary of State
- Timothy Muris - Federal Trade Commission
Source and othersIs that enough for a majority? It seems like most of the major positions are carried over from the Reagan (or Bush, Sr)'s administration.
I agree with you that everyone has had at least a hand in this cookie jar. But what lead to the recent escalation was the fact that Bush turned a cold shoulder when suicide bombers were blowing up Israel and for the first couple of days of Israel's incursion, Bush did not give a public statement telling either sides to back down. (as reported in Time Magazine and LA Time.
You must remember that Bush came into the White House saying outright that Clinton's mistake was in meddling with the affairs of the Middle East. Up until 2 weeks ago, he pretty much wanted to ignore the issues...which lead to mass confusion on Bush's stance Which Sharon took as an OK to advance onto Palestine territory. Now recently, Powell went over there to try to resolve things, but his mission was considered by many as a failure. Both sides have lost respect for the US as a mediator.
:-P
Bush does not really care or want to be involved in the middle east. It's quite a tangled web. On one hand, part of his administration wants to fully support Israel. But on the other hand, if he does support Israel, the entire Islamic world will come down upon him. Even today's news, the Saudi Prince (our supposed Ally) just threatened to cut off ties to the US if the US does not take a harder stance on Israel. In addition, Egypt (another ally) is threatening to go to war again Israel once it gets enough financial support.
Alright...I'm done with my rambling...
Read this article: investigation raised the possibility that there was a secret CIA project to investigate methods of sending anthrax through the mail which went madly out of control.
Excerpt:
Is BBC News enough of a reputable source?
Check these articles: 2nd Leak Of Anthrax Found at Army Lab
Or this one: investigation raised the possibility that there was a secret CIA project to investigate methods of sending anthrax
Excerpt:
Unfortunately what the administration has found is that it has opened up Pandora's box and does not know how to handle it anymore. And like you said, it has fallen back 15 years to Reaganism. The thing is, a good majority of the administration are from the Reagan era. It is much easier to lead a country back during the Cold War than it is now. When you know who your enemies are and can rally support against a common enemy, you can pretty much push anything through legistlation. In the past 6 months or so, the administration has tried to find a common enemy (first terrorists, but since that is a broad term, moved onto Usama Bin ladin, and since we can't find him, moved onto al Qaeda then Taliban, etc, etc...)
Bush has had it out for China since he first stepped into office. Remember the US spy plane incident?. And honestly, China isn't doing anything worse than what the US has been doing for years. I would say distrupting and ousting a democratically elected leader of a country is a bigger crime than DDoS that is talked about in this article.
[Note, this is not troll or flamebait, please read through the entire thing before you decide]
Don't you realize the Microsoft, although they have not produced the best possible software, has done a great deal to get the computer industry to where it is now. Almost every hardware and software manufacturer has benefited from Microsoft bringing to the world OS's that unify the industry, software to make people realize that they need a computer, and other stuff.
I am willing to say that hardware companies benefitted a great deal from what MS has done. It is only because of Microsoft that Intel and AMD (and other PC hardware companies)have been able to achieve what they have achieved to this day. It is only because of MS that computers are so prevalent worldwide. Why, you ask? Imagine you are AMD (or Intel or ATI), your role is to maximize profit and lower costs. Let's just say that a certain chip design was specially optimized for OS1, another for OS2, another for OS3, it would cost you a great deal of money to reach all the customers. It's not just a matter of manufacturing [different molds and different factory lines would have to be used to produce each], but there is increase cost in research and development, in addition to more cost of supporting each chip (ie drivers, help desk, etc). So you say that you should produce only one chip that is not optimized for a certain OS? Well, all the individual niche companies would crush you in competition since their designs are better for certain OS's whereas you are a jack of all trades.
Software companies benefit for the same reason too. Would you rather have 5 teams working on ports of an application to OS1, OS2, OS3... or would you rather have one big team working on developing your application?
The consumer benefitted a great deal from the MS OS Monopoly. When your 70 year old grandmother goes out to buy a computer, because a majority of them are running Windows, as long as she buys a PC with Windows, she knows that what she does will be compatible with her grandson, her neighbor, etc... Businesses reduce costs buy being able to have documents be compatible.
Now, I agree, MS Windows is not the best of the best. In fact, there are many problems with it. However, it is important to realize that fact that we have a unified industry rather than a fragmented one. In the end, it helps out everyone involved. [Now, I agree, it's not always good to do something because other people are doing it...but the alternative to this is even worse.]
They are the same company.
But yea, for my B-school class "Managing Internet Technology and the Venture Capital Process" midterm, the professor had ActiveBuddy come give us their pitch and presentation. We had to analyze the company and decide whether or not we, as VCs, would invest in them.
My analysis was that the market was not big enough for VCs to invest in ActiveBuddy.com. Direct IM advertising and information bots is still a rather unproven technology; there is no evidence that direct IM advertising or even IM information retrieval (movie time, directions, etc) will ever be profitable. In addition, part of their business is to provide a professional service to other companies to build info-bots. The problem with this is that unlike software, info-bots are rather customized to the client needs. It's not a build once, sell many product. If so much time must be spent on each client, it cuts into their profit margins. Lastly, it is always dangerous to build an entire company around a third party network/product. AOL could easily just say that it doesn't like ActiveBuddy anymore and block all their connections. The company would be out of business [BTW: I got an A+]
On another note, I remember seeing SmarterChild being a huge fad when it first appeared. I had realized that not only was it a intelligent bot, but it was also tracking all conversations you have with the bot and recording your SN. In the same way that you wouldn't want to give your SN to a spammer, you shouldn't provide the bot with your SN. One of these days, it's going to use that massive list of SNs and "spam" your SN.
If you read the links on my parent post, Company Policies are the only things that can prevent a company from being targetted. If an employee acted against the policy, then they are considered a rogue employee and the company is responsible for punishing them and the target of the lawsuit goes to the employee. However, in this case, it didn't seem like there was a company policy to ban MP3s
But people like you (and there are millions on the internet) put these companies in a precarious situation. They know they need to change their business model, but because of people like you, they can't. With the current user mindset, no business online can make a profit (short of the few leaders in the market).
Second of all...we're not talking about spam. That is a totally separate topic. We're talking about tracking your usage and customize your user experience with your prior experiences/preferences.
If that's the case...aren't software just data also? So in other words, you are saying that it should be legal to pirate software also.
How far does it go? How bout movies? Data? Pirate that too. Your credit card number...data...hand it over. etc..etc..etc..
My point is this. The RIAA isn't going after the MP3 standard or any data standard, but rather the actual music itself. That is a person's piece of art and you have made an illegal copy of it.
They have the same power as the BSA, which is to say that they have no legal powers. What they do have though is the ability to sue you causing you to spend a good deal of money to defend or you can settle out of court.
In this case, I think the RIAA did the right thing. They went after the illegal copyrighted files on the network. On the otherhand when they are going after Napster, Kazaa, or whatever.. They have very little case. Napster is a tool, like a gun. And as the NRA often says, "guns don't kill, people do.." blah blah...
[Disclaimer: I'm not trying to equate guns to napster, but this was just to prove a point]
I believe you are wrong on your analysis. IANAL. There was a ruling within the last couple of years saying that the employer is responsible for all things on the network.
For example, if an employee were to forward around a racist joke. [Let's just say for this scenario it's about Green People]. A employee that is offended by the joke doesn't sue the people that is forwarding it, but rather the employer for creating a "unsafe" [I know that's not the right term..but there's another legal term] condition in the workplace. [Check Here for Other Related Situations]
Scenario 2: If an employee installs a piece of software that the employer doesn't own the license to, the person that is responsible is the employer even if he is not aware of it. [Read More Here]
Scenario 3: If a hacker sets up a warez site on one of your server, you are not technically liable, but the FBI can come in with an warrant and confiscate the server without giving you an opportunity backup all the data that you need from that server. [Operation Bandwidth]
Basically my point is this, the employer is ultimately responsible for all employees and equipment onsite. 1) If they are taking IP claims to all the work that you do on the office computers, they should also be liable for all the bad things that you do. 2) Ultimately, the employer owns all the equipment and must be actively enforcing the rules.
I agree...this is one of the few insightful comments that have not been modded up in this discussion.