Frankly, I'm upset that they're coming out with it for Windows, because that's one less reason for people to switch to Macintosh. Yeah, sure it's proprietary hardware and partly proprietary software, but if you haven't used a Mac yet, then you're missing out.
If I could afford a 15" Powerbook, I'd dump my PC entirely and never look back. As it is, my 12" iBook suffices for most portable usage.
A lot of consumers will get pissed off, not complain, and then copy the software anyway. Some of them won't even worry about it, and make a copy because that's what they were planning to do. Some them will not care one way or the other and use the product anyway; no complaining there. Some will switch to something else.
Only a very small percentage will actually complain about it, and that number will be way smaller than any of the other types of users.
I'm just guessing here, but I bet I will be right.
In Microsoft's defense - Mac IE used to be at least decent, but then started falling behind and was put out of it's (and our) misery. In my experience, it always worked better than Nutscrape on that platform.
Now that Safari is here, there's no need for any other browser. It's small, it renders well, it's free, and it's pretty generic. I use it on a daily basis - I've quit bothering with other browsers on the Mac (don't ask me about Opera - I refuse to use software produced by whiny-ass bitches).
Of course customers want good browsers. They just can't see them past the big blue e on their desktop.
I'll go one step further and say they can't see past the Windows on the startup screen. I really think MacOS X is going to be a better OS than either Linux or Windows IN A COUPLE OF YEARS. Pity that only 5% of the market will be using it.
I'm not sure they're going about this the right way (Bear with me, I don't have a good solution, either).
Microsoft has 95% of the browser market. While better security may be an incentive to fix the security holes, that is mostly separate from layout issues. So we're really dealing with two separate chunks of issues.
Now, as far as the layout problems go - Microsoft is the defacto standard for web design, if not the actual published standard (there wasn't much of a standard when they started the project). Web designers may be complaining, but they hardly make up the majority of the customers. So, from a cost/benefit standpoint (we'll ignore the "doing the right thing" thing - everyone around here automatically assumes they won't, regardless), where's the carrot?
What concrete reward does Microsoft get from fixing the layout bugs, aside from a small percentage of users (web designers) who are then happier? Remember, this small (but vocal) minority has a voice in the developer community, but combined, developers and designers still only make up a small percentage. Neither group has much of a voice in the Ma and Pa Walmart world, and most of those people probably aren't even aware that anything is wrong.
I'm not saying Microsoft is right on this - but I am asking a serious question here.
I doubt that Eolas will go after other browsers, since the sole owner of the company has publicly stated his intention to "change the browser landscape".
On the other hand, is it legal to sue someone for not even-handedly enforcing their patents?
The telecommunications industry is just as prone to hire dumbasses as any other industry. That being said, I'm willing to bet that the moment this was announced, some evil little twit started twiddling his thumbs and planning to crack it.
Perhaps a new law akin to Murphy's: if one man invents it, another man will make plans to pervert it.
More to the point - these bars want to protect the customers and themselves. If citizens are given the right to protect themselves by lethal measures (guns, etc.) that can be used stupidly (ie., not keeping kids away from them), then I see no problem with allowing bars to protect themselves by non-lethal methods that cause no physical, or mental, harm.
This is a reasonable solution to several problems. Those who are underage and want a drink will be deterred from passing a fake ID; date-rape druggers may be deterred if they realize that they may be more easily identified; drunk troublemakers can be identified more easily, making the environment safer for patrons, employees and bar owners, by allowing bar owners to refuse them service.
So, think of it not 'for the kids', but rather for the other adults in the club who may not want to associate with assholes.
--
On a side note, I think it's great that some wannabe Libertarians are looking out for our rights. On the other hand, being so totally focused on the individual completely ignores that individuals must live together in a society, and until the time that we are all innately considerate of others, it requires some rules and restrictions on behaviour.
As for the Hitler and Stalin comment - that's not a valid argument at this point. This is not a governmental action - it is a private action and there is a distinction, whether or not you realize it. Here in the U.S. (perhaps in Canada, as well) restaurants and bars have the right to refuse service to the individual at any time. This tool merely makes it easier for them to keep track of who they've refused service to in the past.
My theory on the whole thing goes something like this: when you pay for a basic cable account, you are paying a low fee because your system is considered to be low-usage, low risk to the ISPs system, even though you *may* be less of a resource drain because you operate your own servers. You are also paying a standard ISP infrastructure fee to cover the cost of the equipment, software, and support that is standard for all users running what would normally be connected to their systems.
If you're purchasing a commercial account (one that would normally be expected to have a mail server behind it) then you are automatically a risk to the ISPs systems. You could be a spammer for all they know and the consequent drain on bandwidth needs to be paid for, because they have to pay someone else for their bandwidth.
It's great and all that you can set up a mail server on your own systems at home, but I would suggest you either look into a commercial account, or dump the mail server and go with what your ISP provides. If you're doing it for filtering purposes, there are plenty of choices in filtering software that don't require a server.
If you're running a hidden spam operation, then my suggestion is that you douse yourself in gasoline, and light a match.
Either way, you paid for a standard package that most likely precludes the use of a mailserver behind the connection, so stop whining. Anything that can cut down on spam is a good thing (including options involving baseball bats and little pellets of lead).
Fine. The University is the steward of that bandwidth, and has been given the right and duty to make decisions about it's use to maximize the benefit for the university, the students and the taxpayers. By ensuring that P2P applications are not used on the system, they are maximizing the benefits for all students, faculty and administration, which is well within their purview.
Their methods may be questionable at best - but their intent and duty is pretty clear.
Let's see, just how many years would you get in Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison for that if it became a regular thing? I, personally, cannot count that high.
I'm serious here. How does one maintain the moral high ground by resorting to unethical tactics, or does that no longer matter? I thought Open Source and Free Software were supposed to be about more than just destroying Microsoft, but your answer certainly leads me to believe that there are some in the movement who care nothing about about doing the right thing, just that some corporation goes down in flames.
Your insistence that ethical behaviour doesn't matter (and that's certainly what comes across between the lines) makes me think that you are no better than Microsoft on that count.
I have to wonder, seriously, if this is the right forum for such a question. You're asking people to make a snap decision on very little information and in all seriousness, it's something you're getting paid to decide, not us. There's plenty of information out there on the web about doing this, and you're asking us to do your research./end soapbox
It may be a bit shady, and MS may be right on many counts, but it doesn't matter
So much for ethical behaviour - the ends justifies the means, right?
I'm wondering what the next step is - out and out fraud? What's the next step? Theft? Murder?
This sort of comment is exactly what the Open Source community should be castigating. After all, one of the main reasons it exists is to combat unethical corporate behaviour. So why should you allow someone else to get away with it?
My question is: why are you even supporting the record companies by purchasing CD's with encrypted tracks?
Even if there is a way around the encryption - purchasing a CD of that ilk puts money in the pockets of people it shouldn't be in. Sure, it's great to have a method to bypass their encryption, but think about the long term effects of the purchase.
If consumers stop buying CDs because they're encrypted, eventually the record companies will stop producing encrypted CDs.
If you purchase it based on the idea that "someone would have bought this, ripped it and released it anyway so why not me?", then you're still putting some money in the pockets of RIAA, the record company, and artists who support their actions.
onsidered WMD by the US and even now such dangerous machines as the G3+ and P3+ processors and PS2s are controlled exports
True, but the US is not the only supplier of such machines and software. Taiwan, Japan and Korea have many suppliers of current hardware and software is easy to come by. Besides, if it's a techno-utopia, then there's no need for out-of-country commercial software - you just write your own.
On the downside, there's all that infrastructure crap that goes along with building a country. Somebody has to clean the streets, dig the wells, build sewer systems, etc. All that junk that would ruin a techno-utopia because those people aren't all that concerned with high-tech stuff.
Score one for rationality. One could quite possibly argue that the stars, moons, and obstetricians have no possible effect on one's life, but no one would be listening. They'd be having fun, instead.
I'd think GPS would have to be damn near ubiquitous for that to work. Which would require that education be improved so that graduating seniors actually knew what lat/long is.
I'm not going to hold my breath on that one. Give it a hundred years or so.
I think the idea here was that security should be considered at every step of the way, which is absolutely true. While the speed of fixing the bug is certainly commendable, it should not have been there in the first place as this is a fairly common mistake.
I can understand it from someone new to programming, but if it's going to be something that is touted as being secure, that should be the first consideration in every line of code. Especially if it's something that allows deep access into the system.
I realize that such an undertaking is herculean, but that is what we, as programmers, should shoot for every time.
Slashdot Mirror
Suffer.
Frankly, I'm upset that they're coming out with it for Windows, because that's one less reason for people to switch to Macintosh. Yeah, sure it's proprietary hardware and partly proprietary software, but if you haven't used a Mac yet, then you're missing out.
If I could afford a 15" Powerbook, I'd dump my PC entirely and never look back. As it is, my 12" iBook suffices for most portable usage.
A lot of consumers will get pissed off, not complain, and then copy the software anyway. Some of them won't even worry about it, and make a copy because that's what they were planning to do. Some them will not care one way or the other and use the product anyway; no complaining there. Some will switch to something else.
Only a very small percentage will actually complain about it, and that number will be way smaller than any of the other types of users.
I'm just guessing here, but I bet I will be right.
In Microsoft's defense - Mac IE used to be at least decent, but then started falling behind and was put out of it's (and our) misery. In my experience, it always worked better than Nutscrape on that platform.
Now that Safari is here, there's no need for any other browser. It's small, it renders well, it's free, and it's pretty generic. I use it on a daily basis - I've quit bothering with other browsers on the Mac (don't ask me about Opera - I refuse to use software produced by whiny-ass bitches).
Of course customers want good browsers. They just can't see them past the big blue e on their desktop.
I'll go one step further and say they can't see past the Windows on the startup screen. I really think MacOS X is going to be a better OS than either Linux or Windows IN A COUPLE OF YEARS. Pity that only 5% of the market will be using it.
I'm not sure they're going about this the right way (Bear with me, I don't have a good solution, either).
Microsoft has 95% of the browser market. While better security may be an incentive to fix the security holes, that is mostly separate from layout issues. So we're really dealing with two separate chunks of issues.
Now, as far as the layout problems go - Microsoft is the defacto standard for web design, if not the actual published standard (there wasn't much of a standard when they started the project). Web designers may be complaining, but they hardly make up the majority of the customers. So, from a cost/benefit standpoint (we'll ignore the "doing the right thing" thing - everyone around here automatically assumes they won't, regardless), where's the carrot?
What concrete reward does Microsoft get from fixing the layout bugs, aside from a small percentage of users (web designers) who are then happier? Remember, this small (but vocal) minority has a voice in the developer community, but combined, developers and designers still only make up a small percentage. Neither group has much of a voice in the Ma and Pa Walmart world, and most of those people probably aren't even aware that anything is wrong.
I'm not saying Microsoft is right on this - but I am asking a serious question here.
I doubt that Eolas will go after other browsers, since the sole owner of the company has publicly stated his intention to "change the browser landscape".
On the other hand, is it legal to sue someone for not even-handedly enforcing their patents?
The telecommunications industry is just as prone to hire dumbasses as any other industry. That being said, I'm willing to bet that the moment this was announced, some evil little twit started twiddling his thumbs and planning to crack it.
Perhaps a new law akin to Murphy's: if one man invents it, another man will make plans to pervert it.
These clubs just want to protect their customers.
More to the point - these bars want to protect the customers and themselves. If citizens are given the right to protect themselves by lethal measures (guns, etc.) that can be used stupidly (ie., not keeping kids away from them), then I see no problem with allowing bars to protect themselves by non-lethal methods that cause no physical, or mental, harm.
This is a reasonable solution to several problems. Those who are underage and want a drink will be deterred from passing a fake ID; date-rape druggers may be deterred if they realize that they may be more easily identified; drunk troublemakers can be identified more easily, making the environment safer for patrons, employees and bar owners, by allowing bar owners to refuse them service.
So, think of it not 'for the kids', but rather for the other adults in the club who may not want to associate with assholes.
--
On a side note, I think it's great that some wannabe Libertarians are looking out for our rights. On the other hand, being so totally focused on the individual completely ignores that individuals must live together in a society, and until the time that we are all innately considerate of others, it requires some rules and restrictions on behaviour.
As for the Hitler and Stalin comment - that's not a valid argument at this point. This is not a governmental action - it is a private action and there is a distinction, whether or not you realize it. Here in the U.S. (perhaps in Canada, as well) restaurants and bars have the right to refuse service to the individual at any time. This tool merely makes it easier for them to keep track of who they've refused service to in the past.
I, personally, see it as a good thing. Go Canada!
I suggest the term 'fap' (thanks Fark)
kilofap
megafap
gigafap
terafap
petafap
or kittens
kilokitten
megakitten
and so and so forth.
Holy cow! I thought this guy was evil incarnate. So now, it looks like he's evil incarnate, who's trying to make himself look good.
My theory on the whole thing goes something like this: when you pay for a basic cable account, you are paying a low fee because your system is considered to be low-usage, low risk to the ISPs system, even though you *may* be less of a resource drain because you operate your own servers. You are also paying a standard ISP infrastructure fee to cover the cost of the equipment, software, and support that is standard for all users running what would normally be connected to their systems.
If you're purchasing a commercial account (one that would normally be expected to have a mail server behind it) then you are automatically a risk to the ISPs systems. You could be a spammer for all they know and the consequent drain on bandwidth needs to be paid for, because they have to pay someone else for their bandwidth.
It's great and all that you can set up a mail server on your own systems at home, but I would suggest you either look into a commercial account, or dump the mail server and go with what your ISP provides. If you're doing it for filtering purposes, there are plenty of choices in filtering software that don't require a server.
If you're running a hidden spam operation, then my suggestion is that you douse yourself in gasoline, and light a match.
Either way, you paid for a standard package that most likely precludes the use of a mailserver behind the connection, so stop whining. Anything that can cut down on spam is a good thing (including options involving baseball bats and little pellets of lead).
I'm still going to wait for the second weekend because the one thing that spoils a movie more than anything else is other people in the theater.
The taxpayers of Florida own that bandwidth.
Fine. The University is the steward of that bandwidth, and has been given the right and duty to make decisions about it's use to maximize the benefit for the university, the students and the taxpayers. By ensuring that P2P applications are not used on the system, they are maximizing the benefits for all students, faculty and administration, which is well within their purview.
Their methods may be questionable at best - but their intent and duty is pretty clear.
Let's see, just how many years would you get in Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison for that if it became a regular thing? I, personally, cannot count that high.
In short: it is an insane and heretic idea, that can only be bred by evil plans or by ignorance.
Which, of course, means that lots and lots of people will leap on it and exclaim "Great Sega! Why hasn't this been done before?!"
Of course, insane and heretic ideas frequently become a great and wonderful thing. Christianity? The automobile? GPL?
Food for thought.
Is is just me or does this summary sound really similar to the way Windows starts up?
I guess at some point, operating systems begin to resemble each other.
Pity.
Which leads to the inevitable conclusion: A 1x10-7 second here, a 1x10-7 second there, sooner or later we're talkin' real time!
I'm serious here. How does one maintain the moral high ground by resorting to unethical tactics, or does that no longer matter? I thought Open Source and Free Software were supposed to be about more than just destroying Microsoft, but your answer certainly leads me to believe that there are some in the movement who care nothing about about doing the right thing, just that some corporation goes down in flames.
Your insistence that ethical behaviour doesn't matter (and that's certainly what comes across between the lines) makes me think that you are no better than Microsoft on that count.
I have to wonder, seriously, if this is the right forum for such a question. You're asking people to make a snap decision on very little information and in all seriousness, it's something you're getting paid to decide, not us. There's plenty of information out there on the web about doing this, and you're asking us to do your research. /end soapbox
It may be a bit shady, and MS may be right on many counts, but it doesn't matter
So much for ethical behaviour - the ends justifies the means, right?
I'm wondering what the next step is - out and out fraud? What's the next step? Theft? Murder?
This sort of comment is exactly what the Open Source community should be castigating. After all, one of the main reasons it exists is to combat unethical corporate behaviour. So why should you allow someone else to get away with it?
Are you sure you're in the right forum? I'm smelling sarcasm here.
My question is: why are you even supporting the record companies by purchasing CD's with encrypted tracks?
Even if there is a way around the encryption - purchasing a CD of that ilk puts money in the pockets of people it shouldn't be in. Sure, it's great to have a method to bypass their encryption, but think about the long term effects of the purchase.
If consumers stop buying CDs because they're encrypted, eventually the record companies will stop producing encrypted CDs.
If you purchase it based on the idea that "someone would have bought this, ripped it and released it anyway so why not me?", then you're still putting some money in the pockets of RIAA, the record company, and artists who support their actions.
onsidered WMD by the US and even now such dangerous machines as the G3+ and P3+ processors and PS2s are controlled exports
True, but the US is not the only supplier of such machines and software. Taiwan, Japan and Korea have many suppliers of current hardware and software is easy to come by. Besides, if it's a techno-utopia, then there's no need for out-of-country commercial software - you just write your own.
On the downside, there's all that infrastructure crap that goes along with building a country. Somebody has to clean the streets, dig the wells, build sewer systems, etc. All that junk that would ruin a techno-utopia because those people aren't all that concerned with high-tech stuff.
It's a nice thought, though.
Score one for rationality. One could quite possibly argue that the stars, moons, and obstetricians have no possible effect on one's life, but no one would be listening. They'd be having fun, instead.
I'd think GPS would have to be damn near ubiquitous for that to work. Which would require that education be improved so that graduating seniors actually knew what lat/long is.
I'm not going to hold my breath on that one. Give it a hundred years or so.
I think the idea here was that security should be considered at every step of the way, which is absolutely true. While the speed of fixing the bug is certainly commendable, it should not have been there in the first place as this is a fairly common mistake.
I can understand it from someone new to programming, but if it's going to be something that is touted as being secure, that should be the first consideration in every line of code. Especially if it's something that allows deep access into the system.
I realize that such an undertaking is herculean, but that is what we, as programmers, should shoot for every time.