Per the article: "This new proposal, unrelated to terrorism, is merely a tool to enhance penalties for ordinary crimes, and should be rejected."
One can only assume this legislative proposal will indeed not be implemented in its current form, given the obvious pitfalls, examples of which can be found in the article. Nevertheless, it seems like a step back to the pre-2000 way of thinking, that considered encryption to be a form of ammunition.
I beg to differ. Roughly speaking (and this is overly simplistic, I know), hooking up 422 towns just means having 422 times the amount of cable. Of course there are economies of scale playing here, but once again: I fail to see how broadband access can be called a natural monopoly.
To strenghten my point: broadband access is currently offered via copper wire, coax cable and satellite. Funny natural monopoly...
It looks like there is an overwhelming support for more restrictions on privacy. The number of respondents is quite high, so results might be considered pretty accurate (although manipulation is of course very easy).
This is great for programmers; but these bonds would be worthless to anyone actually interested in investment. And without a heavy influx of investment capital, today's tech companies wouldn't be able to do much of anything.
I am not exactly sure whether I agree with this opinion or not. If you are implying the potential market for a certain bond might be too small, I am inclined to agree.
On the other hand, if you are implying no money can be made buying these bonds, I beg to differ. In a well-functioning market, the price of a bond will reflect the potential gains of investing in this bond (taking into account risk of investing in this particular bond).
Besides the problems about such a bond mentioned in other replies (eg pricing), I'm thinking potential buyers of the software might be reluctant to show their willingness to pay for the software by buying bonds to fund the development of this software.
It is my experience potential buyers of big software projects go out of their way _not_ to show to the developing firm their eagerness for this software. Let it be clear I am not talking about software products being sold to thousands of customers, I'm talking about software that is being developed for just a small potential market, possibly just a few interested firms.
Might it not be better for this small group of potential buyers to not reveal too much of their eagerness to buy a certain product?
Hehe, that's fast, congrats:-)
Anyway, I don't see why anyone would want to publish this key for, as it's most probably illegal to do so in most countries.
[OT I'm rather new to/., but I'm wondering why some messages are 'beneath my current treshold', while messages like this one are not.]
Obviously the above/.er didn't read through the article with his full attention, otherwise he or she would have noticed the fact you can (sequentially if necessary) upgrade your computer without reactivating.
On a side note: I believe companies have every right to protect their software in any way they seem fit (within the boundaries of applicable law, as enforced by governments). I also believe users have every right to choose the software they use. To put it shortly: if you don't like this new MS practice, don't use it.
Slashdot Mirror
A reporter's honesty - media integrity - will matter just as much as a ballot counter's. They're both needed for democracy to succeed.
Per the article: "This new proposal, unrelated to terrorism, is merely a tool to enhance penalties for ordinary crimes, and should be rejected."
One can only assume this legislative proposal will indeed not be implemented in its current form, given the obvious pitfalls, examples of which can be found in the article. Nevertheless, it seems like a step back to the pre-2000 way of thinking, that considered encryption to be a form of ammunition.
I beg to differ. Roughly speaking (and this is overly simplistic, I know), hooking up 422 towns just means having 422 times the amount of cable. Of course there are economies of scale playing here, but once again: I fail to see how broadband access can be called a natural monopoly.
To strenghten my point: broadband access is currently offered via copper wire, coax cable and satellite. Funny natural monopoly...
I fail to see how broadband internet access can be called a natural monopoly?
I agree, current results can be consulted here.
It looks like there is an overwhelming support for more restrictions on privacy. The number of respondents is quite high, so results might be considered pretty accurate (although manipulation is of course very easy).
On the other hand, if you are implying no money can be made buying these bonds, I beg to differ. In a well-functioning market, the price of a bond will reflect the potential gains of investing in this bond (taking into account risk of investing in this particular bond).
Besides the problems about such a bond mentioned in other replies (eg pricing), I'm thinking potential buyers of the software might be reluctant to show their willingness to pay for the software by buying bonds to fund the development of this software.
It is my experience potential buyers of big software projects go out of their way _not_ to show to the developing firm their eagerness for this software. Let it be clear I am not talking about software products being sold to thousands of customers, I'm talking about software that is being developed for just a small potential market, possibly just a few interested firms.
Might it not be better for this small group of potential buyers to not reveal too much of their eagerness to buy a certain product?
Hehe, that's fast, congrats :-)
Anyway, I don't see why anyone would want to publish this key for, as it's most probably illegal to do so in most countries.
[OT I'm rather new to /., but I'm wondering why some messages are 'beneath my current treshold', while messages like this one are not.]
Obviously the above /.er didn't read through the article with his full attention, otherwise he or she would have noticed the fact you can (sequentially if necessary) upgrade your computer without reactivating.
On a side note: I believe companies have every right to protect their software in any way they seem fit (within the boundaries of applicable law, as enforced by governments). I also believe users have every right to choose the software they use. To put it shortly: if you don't like this new MS practice, don't use it.