If the software is purchased, seller and/or manufacturer should be liable for seurity (and also all other) bugs. Payment should include value of software plus value for bug fixes for say 3-4 years.
But of course, if bugfix is available but not installed buy customer, liability for that particular unadressed problem should be voided.
This has been what is happening. A good number of companies support software for the given timespan that you mention. They often release any patches to deal with security and bugs.
I think a lot of us are talking specifically about MS here. MS has supported all of their products (or at least a good number of them) well past 5 years. In fact, it was only November of 2001 that they decided that they were not going to "officially" support Windows 95 anymore. Secondly, like you said, it should be the responsibility of the users/administrators to keep up with patches. This had been the reason why Nimda and Code Red were able to propagate so much. Microsoft had published a bug fix 3 month prior to Code Red. But only a small fraction of the administrator actually implemented it. So who's fault is that? Why should MS be liable for the laziness/inability of the admin to fix a problem that they were notified about. These admins were as much responsible for the spread as the creators of the worm.
Partially true. Google is actually a pretty profitable company. However, the main revenue source that they get do not originate from the end users, but rather through licensing schemes. One of their biggest customers is Yahoo [Notice the Powered by Google]. In addition to this, as you might have read in/., Google is marketting a "Google Search Appliance. This is actually a pretty high revenue stream as the demand for intranet searchable content increases.
I totally agree with you. In business, the market leader gets 80-90% of the market while everybody else in the industry struggle for the 10-20%. It's a fact of economics, not just the internet.
Let's put it this way. If I said, name an auction site, the majority of you will name Ebay. If I asked a random person on the street a ISP, a majority (unfortunately) would name AOL. If I asked you what IM system you use, a majority would say AIM.
Unlike other industries, the internet and technology in itself benefit from increasing returns. The fact that the number 1 player is 10x better than the number 2 and the number 2 is 10x better than 3 and the fact that capital was pouring in at a significant rate was the fact that the.COM bursted early last year.
However, the future looks bright from here on out. There are signs that the industry is coming back as more and more VCs are willing to put up the money and bigger money than in the last 6 months.
All I'm saying is that by the time that I by the time I graduate from college, I better have some type of broadband connection for relatively cheap, or FREE!. I would probably kill myself if I have to go back to 56K from the 155 Mbps that I have been spoiled with for the past 3 years.
In recent years, there have been talks about legistlations to pass a email fee. (in the same way that they would do with normal mail) I would gladly accept a couple spams rather than the alternative of a per-email fee.
One of the system administrators that I have worked with for a client has actually done this. He owns an ISP. Basically what he does is he setup the SMTP server to sleep for.001 milliseconds (or something small like that) for every email that you send. So if a person sends one email, there is no slow down. But if a person sends 100,000, after the 1000th or so, you'd have to wait close to a minute after each message sent. So at that point, the spammer figures his autospam program is bugging out and cancels to try again.
Most spams do not use valid return addresses. They either have you click on a URL to go to a website or have you call a number or mail something to an address. The reason that this happens is that if they were to use valid emails, they could be tracked down easily. Their accounts would close once they are detected to be spammers. So they use dummy accounts at one of the free email services online. Or they setup dummy return address fields. This hides their tracks to an extent.
Another thing that they do is they send you spam just to check if you have a valid email address. There is probably greater profits in the sale of email addresses than what they seem to be selling in the emails. Even if you don't respond to it, 1) they don't get a auto-response bounce back (therefore it's valid) 2) at times HTML emails contain images located on a server. This allows them to track if a message has been read and which message.
Why go to a website if you're only reading their content and using up their bandwidth and server if you are not willing to pay for it even indirectly? This is quite like going into a magazine store to read the magazines but not buying it. It is not illegal per se. But it is also hurting the service that you use.
Once these companies go bankrupt, AOL/TW will buy up all content services and put it only accessible within their framework. What would your WebWasher do for you then? Would you be more willing to pay a couple dollars a month for the service now or 21.95 for an AOL/TW account?
Come on guys. Nothing is ever free. There is always a cost. Whether it's a financial cost, opportunity cost, or others, in the end, someone has to pay for it. We have to realize that the last couple of years has been a fluke in the whole economic cycle. There is no possible way that that cycle could have continued.
What I see is that (and it has already started happening in the last year or so) all these little web sites will be bought up by a conglomerate and mergered together. The economics of this is quite smart. I mean, it's not really economical for one small company to have a 10K server and a 1k/month internet connection. If 10 of these sites have been merged together, they would come to 1/10 (maybe a little more) of the original cost. Examples of this are seen here at Slashdot, eVite by Excite, and others.
Even then, these conglomerates will still not be able to afford to make a decent profit (I mean, that's what companies are there for..making money) So they might in the end look towards a pay for content plan. So it becomes, people will only pay for content that they care about or are interested in. Content that they read frequently. In the end, it becomes a choice for the consumers where demand sets the price.
Now for the point of this post. I would gladly pay $2-5 (approximately the price of a newstand magazine) for access to quality content. I would definitely pay that much for access to read articles and post on slashdot. In addition, this would be a great raise the quality of the content (ie posting).
Also, a number of people have posted about using ad-blocker programs. In the end, those programs are only hurting yourself and everyone else on the internet. Company need the small amount of money coming from these advertisers to barely stay afloat. These programs only go to convince the advertisers to pay significantly less for the ads because less and less people are viewing the ads. Think about it this way, would advertisers pay millions of dollars to advertise during the Super Bowl if they found out that there was a technology that a good population of TV watchers are using to block the super bowl ads?
Anytime this type of thing happens to me.. the first place I call is my Credit Card company. They can cut off the funds even before it gets to PayPal.. Also a CC fraud squad would rather protect you rather than the vendor. They get business/money from you, not the retailer.. Just a note for the future.
Geez..they go to harvard and they have enough free time to build a "wireless dartboard"... meanwhile I'm still up a 7am working on my Programming Languages and Translator class project...UGH!
Google, like a lot of the.coms that are still alive, don't make their money directly off of the consumers/users. A good majority of their revenue is from licensing deals with other companies. Yahoo is one of the biggest client of googles. They leverage google's search engine for yahoo's web searches. This alone could bring in a couple million a year. In addition, a couple weeks ago, there was a posting on/. about Google's search/document caching system that they are selling to companies for 20k.
When you stop and think about how important Patents are to our system of Capitalism (Kills any type of competition in some cases if one is granted / or have ridiculous suits despite the fact that there are obvious cases of prior art) that this is something that needs a serious overhall
Patents are important especially in a capitalist society. Without patents, companies would have no incentive to invest in R&D. Let's just say that you are a company and have just spent $10 million in research and you can't patent your idea, your competitor has a significant advantage in that they can duplicate your idea with the only cost being manufacturing.
I don't think this is as frivolous as a business model patent (like the ones Amazon have). There is a product and a technology behind it. It's not just an idea.
Hey..the same comparison could be used with Linux and Windows. If that is the case, all small companies should give up now because it's "suicide" to compete with someone large.
Traffic shaping and logging information is two totally separate things. Traffic shaping can be done without viewing the contents, but rather the method of transport (ie, host, port, etc). It seems like they are setting up a "proxy"-like server in between the user and the internet. But without substantial corroborating evidence, it is hard to say what this information is used for.
The only thing I could see is that with up to 1 gig of MP3s..that's approximately 500 songs. It might be difficult to scroll through the list to find a particular song using those tiny buttons. Also, if you were driving or walking or doing something else, you don't want to have to keep looking down to change songs. But you're right, to the most part, consumers either love it or look at it as a fad.
I know that the State of Washington has a state do-not-call list/do-not-email list. Basically if you put yourself on this list and a company calls your or spams you, they are held liable to pay a fine to you. I remember reading somewhere how a guy is making ~5000 a year from suing spammers. Here are more legal information sites
I don't think the firewall concept can be used for spam filters. Firewalls work on the concept that you want to keep everyone out except for a select few. Spam filters work on the concept that you want to allow everyone, but a select few. With email, you never know who will email you and/or from what email address. Let's just take this to a corporate environment. If a sales associate or a CEO takes the configuration you recommend, they would lose out on a number of new contacts. They would have to manually enter in an email _before_ it is actually sent to the address. There would be way too many false positives that would be picked up.
The idea is good for personal email accounts where you know only a select number of people will be emailing that account. But to the most part, at least one email account has to be open to the public.
If it's reasonbly priced if/when it comes out, I'll definitely get one if only for the fun use factor!
Reasonably priced, HA! Things like this never become reasonably priced until like 10 years after its initial release. Just look at Flat panel Plasma TVs. They are still well over $5000. I'm thinking this will come out at around the same price. Would you be willing to pay 5K for a 800mhz, 10 gig computer that you will have to shell out even more money to plug it into an LCD, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I like this idea. But it's still in its concept stage and at this point, its only something that geeks will go gaga over for a while.
Hook this up to one of those shoes that generate power as you walk from MIT. Attach it to a glasses HUD with voice recognition and you have a wearable computer.
Who needs 50000 VCRs when you can store all these movies on Hard drive? All the phone company has to do is setup a terabyte+ storage solution clusters and store the videos on there digitally. If it were on vcrs, then only one person could watch a movie at a time. But digital video solution allows random access allowing more people to watch.
One ISP that I had worked with a while ago setup his sendmail so that with each subsequent message it sends, it takes a quarter of a second longer. So, the idea was, spammers send thousands of messages at a time. So after the 100th email, they would have to wait a couple minutes to send. At this point, not knowing that the ISP set this up, they would cancel the send.
Slashdot Mirror
I think a lot of us are talking specifically about MS here. MS has supported all of their products (or at least a good number of them) well past 5 years. In fact, it was only November of 2001 that they decided that they were not going to "officially" support Windows 95 anymore. Secondly, like you said, it should be the responsibility of the users/administrators to keep up with patches. This had been the reason why Nimda and Code Red were able to propagate so much. Microsoft had published a bug fix 3 month prior to Code Red. But only a small fraction of the administrator actually implemented it. So who's fault is that? Why should MS be liable for the laziness/inability of the admin to fix a problem that they were notified about. These admins were as much responsible for the spread as the creators of the worm.
Partially true. Google is actually a pretty profitable company. However, the main revenue source that they get do not originate from the end users, but rather through licensing schemes. One of their biggest customers is Yahoo [Notice the Powered by Google]. In addition to this, as you might have read in /., Google is marketting a "Google Search Appliance. This is actually a pretty high revenue stream as the demand for intranet searchable content increases.
I totally agree with you. In business, the market leader gets 80-90% of the market while everybody else in the industry struggle for the 10-20%. It's a fact of economics, not just the internet.
.COM bursted early last year.
Let's put it this way. If I said, name an auction site, the majority of you will name Ebay. If I asked a random person on the street a ISP, a majority (unfortunately) would name AOL. If I asked you what IM system you use, a majority would say AIM.
Unlike other industries, the internet and technology in itself benefit from increasing returns. The fact that the number 1 player is 10x better than the number 2 and the number 2 is 10x better than 3 and the fact that capital was pouring in at a significant rate was the fact that the
However, the future looks bright from here on out. There are signs that the industry is coming back as more and more VCs are willing to put up the money and bigger money than in the last 6 months.
I meant... 155 Mbps
All I'm saying is that by the time that I by the time I graduate from college, I better have some type of broadband connection for relatively cheap, or FREE!. I would probably kill myself if I have to go back to 56K from the 155 Mbps that I have been spoiled with for the past 3 years.
EXACTLY!
In recent years, there have been talks about legistlations to pass a email fee. (in the same way that they would do with normal mail) I would gladly accept a couple spams rather than the alternative of a per-email fee.
One of the system administrators that I have worked with for a client has actually done this. He owns an ISP. Basically what he does is he setup the SMTP server to sleep for .001 milliseconds (or something small like that) for every email that you send. So if a person sends one email, there is no slow down. But if a person sends 100,000, after the 1000th or so, you'd have to wait close to a minute after each message sent. So at that point, the spammer figures his autospam program is bugging out and cancels to try again.
Most spams do not use valid return addresses. They either have you click on a URL to go to a website or have you call a number or mail something to an address. The reason that this happens is that if they were to use valid emails, they could be tracked down easily. Their accounts would close once they are detected to be spammers. So they use dummy accounts at one of the free email services online. Or they setup dummy return address fields. This hides their tracks to an extent.
Another thing that they do is they send you spam just to check if you have a valid email address. There is probably greater profits in the sale of email addresses than what they seem to be selling in the emails. Even if you don't respond to it, 1) they don't get a auto-response bounce back (therefore it's valid) 2) at times HTML emails contain images located on a server. This allows them to track if a message has been read and which message.
Why go to a website if you're only reading their content and using up their bandwidth and server if you are not willing to pay for it even indirectly? This is quite like going into a magazine store to read the magazines but not buying it. It is not illegal per se. But it is also hurting the service that you use.
Once these companies go bankrupt, AOL/TW will buy up all content services and put it only accessible within their framework. What would your WebWasher do for you then? Would you be more willing to pay a couple dollars a month for the service now or 21.95 for an AOL/TW account?
Come on guys. Nothing is ever free. There is always a cost. Whether it's a financial cost, opportunity cost, or others, in the end, someone has to pay for it. We have to realize that the last couple of years has been a fluke in the whole economic cycle. There is no possible way that that cycle could have continued.
What I see is that (and it has already started happening in the last year or so) all these little web sites will be bought up by a conglomerate and mergered together. The economics of this is quite smart. I mean, it's not really economical for one small company to have a 10K server and a 1k/month internet connection. If 10 of these sites have been merged together, they would come to 1/10 (maybe a little more) of the original cost. Examples of this are seen here at Slashdot, eVite by Excite, and others.
Even then, these conglomerates will still not be able to afford to make a decent profit (I mean, that's what companies are there for..making money) So they might in the end look towards a pay for content plan. So it becomes, people will only pay for content that they care about or are interested in. Content that they read frequently. In the end, it becomes a choice for the consumers where demand sets the price.
Now for the point of this post. I would gladly pay $2-5 (approximately the price of a newstand magazine) for access to quality content. I would definitely pay that much for access to read articles and post on slashdot. In addition, this would be a great raise the quality of the content (ie posting).
Also, a number of people have posted about using ad-blocker programs. In the end, those programs are only hurting yourself and everyone else on the internet. Company need the small amount of money coming from these advertisers to barely stay afloat. These programs only go to convince the advertisers to pay significantly less for the ads because less and less people are viewing the ads. Think about it this way, would advertisers pay millions of dollars to advertise during the Super Bowl if they found out that there was a technology that a good population of TV watchers are using to block the super bowl ads?
Anytime this type of thing happens to me.. the first place I call is my Credit Card company. They can cut off the funds even before it gets to PayPal.. Also a CC fraud squad would rather protect you rather than the vendor. They get business/money from you, not the retailer.. Just a note for the future.
Geez..they go to harvard and they have enough free time to build a "wireless dartboard" ... meanwhile I'm still up a 7am working on my Programming Languages and Translator class project...UGH!
Google, like a lot of the .coms that are still alive, don't make their money directly off of the consumers/users. A good majority of their revenue is from licensing deals with other companies. Yahoo is one of the biggest client of googles. They leverage google's search engine for yahoo's web searches. This alone could bring in a couple million a year. In addition, a couple weeks ago, there was a posting on /. about Google's search/document caching system that they are selling to companies for 20k.
Patents are important especially in a capitalist society. Without patents, companies would have no incentive to invest in R&D. Let's just say that you are a company and have just spent $10 million in research and you can't patent your idea, your competitor has a significant advantage in that they can duplicate your idea with the only cost being manufacturing.
I don't think this is as frivolous as a business model patent (like the ones Amazon have). There is a product and a technology behind it. It's not just an idea.
According to the article, BMW is one of the company that has licensed their technology. Maybe others have also.
Hey..the same comparison could be used with Linux and Windows. If that is the case, all small companies should give up now because it's "suicide" to compete with someone large.
Traffic shaping and logging information is two totally separate things. Traffic shaping can be done without viewing the contents, but rather the method of transport (ie, host, port, etc). It seems like they are setting up a "proxy"-like server in between the user and the internet. But without substantial corroborating evidence, it is hard to say what this information is used for.
The only thing I could see is that with up to 1 gig of MP3s..that's approximately 500 songs. It might be difficult to scroll through the list to find a particular song using those tiny buttons. Also, if you were driving or walking or doing something else, you don't want to have to keep looking down to change songs. But you're right, to the most part, consumers either love it or look at it as a fad.
I know that the State of Washington has a state do-not-call list/do-not-email list. Basically if you put yourself on this list and a company calls your or spams you, they are held liable to pay a fine to you. I remember reading somewhere how a guy is making ~5000 a year from suing spammers. Here are more legal information sites
I don't think the firewall concept can be used for spam filters. Firewalls work on the concept that you want to keep everyone out except for a select few. Spam filters work on the concept that you want to allow everyone, but a select few. With email, you never know who will email you and/or from what email address. Let's just take this to a corporate environment. If a sales associate or a CEO takes the configuration you recommend, they would lose out on a number of new contacts. They would have to manually enter in an email _before_ it is actually sent to the address. There would be way too many false positives that would be picked up.
The idea is good for personal email accounts where you know only a select number of people will be emailing that account. But to the most part, at least one email account has to be open to the public.
>>Yes, I dig movie88.com too!
By the way...movie88 is a Taiwanese company.
If it's reasonbly priced if/when it comes out, I'll definitely get one if only for the fun use factor!
Reasonably priced, HA! Things like this never become reasonably priced until like 10 years after its initial release. Just look at Flat panel Plasma TVs. They are still well over $5000. I'm thinking this will come out at around the same price. Would you be willing to pay 5K for a 800mhz, 10 gig computer that you will have to shell out even more money to plug it into an LCD, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I like this idea. But it's still in its concept stage and at this point, its only something that geeks will go gaga over for a while.
Hook this up to one of those shoes that generate power as you walk from MIT. Attach it to a glasses HUD with voice recognition and you have a wearable computer.
This is gonna be cool...
Who needs 50000 VCRs when you can store all these movies on Hard drive? All the phone company has to do is setup a terabyte+ storage solution clusters and store the videos on there digitally. If it were on vcrs, then only one person could watch a movie at a time. But digital video solution allows random access allowing more people to watch.
One ISP that I had worked with a while ago setup his sendmail so that with each subsequent message it sends, it takes a quarter of a second longer. So, the idea was, spammers send thousands of messages at a time. So after the 100th email, they would have to wait a couple minutes to send. At this point, not knowing that the ISP set this up, they would cancel the send.