Well, one issue you might be missing is that in the UK textbooks can cost 50% less than they do for US students. So double your textbook costs and then see how much of a financial problem it might be.
There's quite a brisk trade going on in "international edition" textbooks here in the US. Most of the time they're the same and can be had for quite a bit less, even after shipping.
I'm a firm believer in a self-correcting market. I also believe that antitrust actions should be specifically reserved to protect consumers, not other corporations.
Tampering with a free market system is like man trying to dig his own river: it requires a myriad of supporting equipment and eventually silts up and dries out anyways. Nature knows the best course.
I see it coming. The people who run Microsoft are clever; many readers here don't think so, but they've managed to outpace and outwit everyone from their competitors to govermnent investigators. Lately we've heard about MS doing "why do you use Linux" surveys and paying a fair amount of attention to the Linux side of the world. No imagine MS Linux: The OS is OSS, free to all. Then you simply buy the CS versions of MS software that run on it, and presto: as a business owner you now have the wonder of Linux, with its highly touted security and "free" price tag, and the integration with your existing MS Windows infrastructure. Imagine Linux web and database servers that interoperate with Active Directory and allow for seamless intranet connections with MS boxes; that's what I see happening. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a full-steam-ahead development team working on it as I type.
I can agree with some of your points here. An associate of mine (let's call him Joe) is nearing the end of a contract with an offshore development "team" that was supposed to have put together a complex system for retrieving large amounts of data over a network to local systems based on a user-defined set of criteria (sorry to be light on the details, but I don't want to compromise his project).
In 1 year, they cobbled together a system that meets some of the criteria and is subject to constant failures. Testing was non-existent. When a new version of the system was submitted to Joe, he would run it through the most rudimentary tests and it would die. He'd send back these results and was usually met with "Oh, but it can't do that much of X, just this much." This resulted in a review of the requirements and a tug-of-war before the issue was corrected. This happened every single time it would break. The final product is, bluntly, of inferior quality, despite the company claiming they have 20 full time developers working on it.
Now, about 4 months ago, in exasperation, Joe called a local freelance developer and asked if he could build the system. He said that he could. His system is now nearing completion, and exceeds the requirements, all for less than was blown on the offshore shop.
In the end, 1 experienced, albeit expensive, developer was able to complete a complicated project in 1/3 the time of the offshore shop, and for about 1/2 the cost.
This is not the only example I've seen, but it's the most pertinent. The other poster's story seems to simply reinforce my experience that in the very short term, these offshore solutions look great, but they don't seem to deliver on what they promise.
There's a problem with this logic. The outsourcing company's very lenghty agreement will include exclusions from liability to the tune that they cannot be sued for failures to keep the network secure. There may be "penalties" involved for failures, but more often than not these are paid in contract time, not actual dollars. The stupid part is, who wants to stay with a company that let your network go to heck in the first place, even if it is "for free?"
There's been a lot of MS bashing in this thread; some justified and most just pure bile. A lot of people have pointed out that Linux systems are not vulnerable in the same manner that MS systems are, and that it's all due to bad code design and terrible programmers who steamrolled security in the name of features.
I think in many of the arguments here, a critical fact has been overlooked. Users of MS products generally want the features that allow for the problems we've seen in the past to crop up. The average user wants automation; they don't want to configure software, or have to understand how the system does what it does, they (here it comes) just want it to work. It's this attitude that has fueled MS' design process; they build software that the end user can turn on and have "just work." No fiddling, no.conf files, no having to know things like DNS servers or what display adapters work in X and all them "whatchamacallits."
I think that if similar products existed in a Linux environment, we'd still be seeing a lot of the same problems, simply because the level of automation required to satisfy the typical user is inherently insecure. I am willing to concede that a suite of applications built on Linux could be more secure, and that Microsoft definitely has a problem in that the flaws in their system are very deep, however: I can recall a number of occasions where I've seen articles here on Slashdot that announce "security hole in (whatever) allows root access! Come get your patches...." If Linux held sway in the desktop world, why would we expect the typical user to be any more willing or able to patch their OS than if they were using MS systems? Granted, there's fewer holes, but they're still there. If typical user never patches their default OS install, then why shouldn't we expect mass root exploits?
Don't get me wrong; I'm not wholeheartedly defending MS. They could have done things better, but I'm not ready to jump on the "Linux is more secure" bandwagon. I firmly believe that if similar applications had been developed for Linux to meet the same demands that MS has answered, we'd still be seeing problems.
On a related note: I've been using Proxomitron for some time now. It's a proxy server that strips or adds (or does whatever you please, really) HTML to pages you're viewing. Unfortunately, the developer has abandoned it, but the latest version still works, and it's free!
Interesting articles. Unfortunately the Yahoo Finance article doesn't go very deep into the actual research itself. Anyone know of more recent articles not necessarily from a medical or scientific journal (while a journal may provide exceptionally detailed information, they are often written in a manner appropriate for the researchers in the field they cater to, and not the layman)?
Vacuum tubes, while certainly less vulnerable than silicon semiconductors, can be affected by electromagnetic radiation. The damage can range from very minimal (the tube freaks out at the time of EM exposure, but works fine afterwards) up to destructive (the gas inside is supercharged, resulting in a melt-through of the glass portion of the tube, or possible damage to the delicate metal components inside). Of course, if the exposure is enough to start melting vacuum tubes, the chances are good that the operator is being roasted, so in that respect then I guess the concern is minimal.:)
An interesting number: Counting gun owners only (not total number of firearms, which may be distributed to others in times of crisis), the armed forces of the United States would be outnumbered by 75 to 1. This is including all branches of the military, and all jobs and positions, from file clerks to combat-ready soldiers to mechanics. I don't know about you, but 75 to 1 odds doesn't sound good at all, even with technical superiority.
You can verify these numbers at the DOD website, or at the GAO website (they list total military personnel). As for the number of gun owners (remember, not total firearms), there's statistics at Brady Campaign, the NRA site, the FBI site, to name a few.
As far as less than ideal levels of self control; what happens when those people end up in command of the military? I'm not going to open a whole new can of worms here, but take a look at where the US military is now. Do you think maybe someone acted a little on the hasty side when sending them there?
I generally don't really dislike Microsoft. But I do so hate Powerpoint. It has made it far too easy to assemble pointless, pure vanilla presentations that everyone must sit through while so-and-so clicks the mouse to make each line of text fly onto the screen.
The last time I had to present, I used Flash to build my presentation. It took me a little bit longer to assemble than if I had used Powerpoint, but the results were astounding. People actually paid attention to what I was saying, and the information on the "slides." The only problem was them asking afterwards how I'd gotten Powerpoint to do all that. Heh.:)
You seem to be equating info about firearms with firearms themselves. Having access to information concerning an organization's legal stance on firearms control laws or even to their articles on particular hunting techniques is very different than having immediate access to a firearm.
If the Brady Campaign advocates further firearm restriction on their site, and the NRA advocates not implementing further restrictions on their site, why is one site any more or less harmful than the other? One is saying there is no good use outside of unmitigated violence, while the other is presenting what they feel are perfectly good uses outside the arena of violence.
The issue at hand is that someone at Symantec is making the decision for you, based on what they feel to be their superior intellect and/or moral compass. If you think that acquiescing to their decisions is right for you, then you are free to install their filters. I prefer to see the information from all sides and draw my own decisions, and I hate to think that anyone else is unknowingly denied that avenue (read: forced to use these filters).
You seem to take a very poor view of the NRA in general. If you wouldn't mind, could you provide links to the articles you mentioned above? I realize the titles may not be the same, but just let us know when the NRA as an organization has published or posted instructions on killing people with Hollywood bravado, or when they've detailed how to maximize the potential of a weapon to kill human beings before your morning meal.
As far as my experience goes, the NRA does not advocate such practices. Maybe you have evidence to the contrary?
Last I had heard, the NRA was not advocating violence. Think about the words you're using; "pro-violence." After careful consideration, do you really think the NRA is pro-violence? My investigations into the subject have not found that to be true.
Putting the semantics of language aside: The issue in this instance is that their sites are filtered on the basis of being "weapons related." Those other sites are most certainly weapons related also. Why aren't they blocked? It's the one-sided censorship that is disturbing here.
I've got a 13 inch television. It was purchased in 1981, last time it was turned on was in 1999. It worked then, but I've re-arranged furniture since and never bothered to plug it back in. I watch television at my friend's homes when there's a reason for a group of us to do so (hockey game or some such), but that's about it. If there's more like me, then the internet is definitely to blame for TV program's falling ratings.:)
You're missing some of the more inflammatory points of the RIAA's tactics here: The amounts they're demanding for compensation. There is no question that they are telling people, in essence, "Settle now for $2/3/4/5000 or we will take you to court and tag you for $15,000,000." We know they are doing this. When they claim "damages" in the amount of $150,000 per file, then people become angry because they know that this claim is unreasonable (think of it: if 10,000 people download a copy of the file from you only, the RIAA is alleging that they lost $15.00 per download on that one song. At that rate, CDs should be priced at about $165.00 each, assuming they average 11 tracks.
This doesn't even touch on legal costs. If the RIAA sends me a letter demanding $2000 in settlement, I have the choice to pay it or hire a lawyer to go to court and represent me. Even if I am innocent, I must hire a competent lawyer and I can expect to pay around $400 per hour for his services. Assuming the case is an "average" civil case and takes 10 hours of the lawyer's time, I'm looking at $4000 in billable hours alone, before filing fees and other costs (the lawyer will charge you for his transit costs and other expenses while defending you). If I try to recover my expenses with a counter-suit, I can expect a lengthy process fueled by a behemoth organization that can afford to put high-priced lawyers on autopilot and forget about them. Innocent people may not like to settle, but sometimes they may take the cheaper way out.
These are the things that make people really angry about what the RIAA is doing. Not that they're defending their properties or business, but that they're doing so in an egregiously "predatory" manner, seemingly outside the conventional channels of the law and with the threatening club of unreasonable penalties to back them up.
I do remember this. The card was designed to beat Winbench. As far as the mfg or the card, I don't remember those.
I know they got caught because they did things too well. The Winbench results were so smokingly fast that the reviewers got suspicious and began checking things out, then blew the company's cover once they were on to the situation.
What if the escalating spam flood is in fact an organized effort by interested parties to try and eliminate (or at least reduce) the anonymity level of the internet? Whenever a new spam avenue is discovered, or even when the old ones are discussed, the idea of "everyone's identified with their certificate / key" comes around. Could this be a ploy by certain groups to make sure they can tag anyone they want, whether it be by email, web use, or simply by posting to a blog? I'm as annoyed as anyone else by the rising spam tide, but I'm loathe to completely abandon the anonymity of many forms of communication the internet offers; for all the bad it brings with it, it allows for a much more unrestricted exchange, especially for those who may have to deal with governments otherwise opposed to free expression.
The GPS tracked vehicle system would be great; the problem is that many municipality's traffic lights are not tied into any sort of coherent network. If they are, it's usually only in a small portion of the city center. Most of the electronic traffic control systems out there today are or are based upon 1970's era technology and are simple, local-controlled systems installed at each intersection. Until massive upgrades are put in place, the GPS system would be effective at a very few intersections if at all.
A friend of mine and myself have an ongoing debate on this very topic. I know I'm right because I've seen it happen, but he insists that there's no danger to simply unplugging and plugging in PS2 goodies whenever he pleases. I cringe every time he does it, but so far he's just been lucky.
I think you could increase the rotation schedule a bit by changing the questions asked. Example: In month one you ask "What's in the picture?" A: A boat. Month 2 asks: "What shape are the boat's sails?" etc. This way you could extend the life cycle of pictures to a period of time only limited by the detail level of the picture. Granted, this is labor intensive, and therefore not necessarily a viable option. Until someone develops a system that can fully comprehend the question and analyze the picture for an answer, they'd be stuck. Of course, when they build that system, I really hope it's used for something more noble than SPAM transmission.
I used to do QA for a company that wrote MO jukebox control software (MDI, anyone?), and I'll have to burst your bubble on reliability and shelf life there. Generally the disks were fine, but if you used them extensively (probably not an issue in your situation, since you're going for archiving), they would eventually begin to break down, losing the ability to be re-written, eventually culminating in a disk full of "unwritable" spots that had to be chucked in the bin.
As far as archiving goes, well, maybe it's not so bad as I paint it, but they don't last forever just sitting on a shelf. It's true that you have more stability than standard magnetic media and dye-based (CDR) discs, but you must be very careful about temperature and humidity and still careful about magnetic fields. I have lots of MO carts that are going on 6 years old and I can still read them without a problem, BUT: I've had several disks lose data for no apparent reason. They were all stored together, in a temperature controlled environment away from magnetic fields and they still lost it. Of the 150 or so disks I started with, I've lost about 30. My advice would be to periodically verify and transfer data to new media to avoid that situation. I guess maybe 30 out of 150 isn't bad for 6 years worth of storage, but then I could stand to lose that data; can you stand to lose yours?
The small business I work for has already run into this problem once. We had purchased a very nice piece of software to handle our business phone lines and act as our voicemail system. The software used several hardware IDs to construct a "key" that you would have to send to the software mfg. in order to receive your activation code. Needless to say, we went through the hassle a few times of having to reinstall the software when we upgraded the system or when it crashed. A little over a year into ownership, we needed to reinstall again and guess what; the company had been purchased and the new mgmt. had developed a new product line. They refused to provide an activation code and instead suggested that we buy their new (costlier) version (no upgrade pricing, so sorry). We didn't, and instead opted for another, slightly less feature-rich but still functional product. Apparently we weren't the only ones, since the new Co. is no longer in business.
Nowadays we're stuck with a certain public records access system that requires activation in a similar fashion. You can bet that we keep a vigilant watch for an alternative. As soon as we spot a good one, the switch is in.
So your scenario has played out already, at least to my experience. Like you, I don't forsee any other outcome from other software corps. In fact, I wouldn't put it past them to eventually start requiring online-only activation with expiry dates, ensuring that at some point they can pull the plug on the software and twist your arm into buying the latest version.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, one issue you might be missing is that in the UK textbooks can cost 50% less than they do for US students. So double your textbook costs and then see how much of a financial problem it might be.
There's quite a brisk trade going on in "international edition" textbooks here in the US. Most of the time they're the same and can be had for quite a bit less, even after shipping.
Amen to that. :)
I'm a firm believer in a self-correcting market. I also believe that antitrust actions should be specifically reserved to protect consumers, not other corporations.
Tampering with a free market system is like man trying to dig his own river: it requires a myriad of supporting equipment and eventually silts up and dries out anyways. Nature knows the best course.
I see it coming. The people who run Microsoft are clever; many readers here don't think so, but they've managed to outpace and outwit everyone from their competitors to govermnent investigators. Lately we've heard about MS doing "why do you use Linux" surveys and paying a fair amount of attention to the Linux side of the world. No imagine MS Linux: The OS is OSS, free to all. Then you simply buy the CS versions of MS software that run on it, and presto: as a business owner you now have the wonder of Linux, with its highly touted security and "free" price tag, and the integration with your existing MS Windows infrastructure. Imagine Linux web and database servers that interoperate with Active Directory and allow for seamless intranet connections with MS boxes; that's what I see happening. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a full-steam-ahead development team working on it as I type.
I can agree with some of your points here. An associate of mine (let's call him Joe) is nearing the end of a contract with an offshore development "team" that was supposed to have put together a complex system for retrieving large amounts of data over a network to local systems based on a user-defined set of criteria (sorry to be light on the details, but I don't want to compromise his project).
In 1 year, they cobbled together a system that meets some of the criteria and is subject to constant failures. Testing was non-existent. When a new version of the system was submitted to Joe, he would run it through the most rudimentary tests and it would die. He'd send back these results and was usually met with "Oh, but it can't do that much of X, just this much." This resulted in a review of the requirements and a tug-of-war before the issue was corrected. This happened every single time it would break. The final product is, bluntly, of inferior quality, despite the company claiming they have 20 full time developers working on it.
Now, about 4 months ago, in exasperation, Joe called a local freelance developer and asked if he could build the system. He said that he could. His system is now nearing completion, and exceeds the requirements, all for less than was blown on the offshore shop.
In the end, 1 experienced, albeit expensive, developer was able to complete a complicated project in 1/3 the time of the offshore shop, and for about 1/2 the cost.
This is not the only example I've seen, but it's the most pertinent. The other poster's story seems to simply reinforce my experience that in the very short term, these offshore solutions look great, but they don't seem to deliver on what they promise.
Look again; a lot of the "paperwork" jobs for healthcare services are now overseas. Form-fillers and billing jobs are increasingly being shipped off.
There's a problem with this logic. The outsourcing company's very lenghty agreement will include exclusions from liability to the tune that they cannot be sued for failures to keep the network secure. There may be "penalties" involved for failures, but more often than not these are paid in contract time, not actual dollars. The stupid part is, who wants to stay with a company that let your network go to heck in the first place, even if it is "for free?"
There's been a lot of MS bashing in this thread; some justified and most just pure bile. A lot of people have pointed out that Linux systems are not vulnerable in the same manner that MS systems are, and that it's all due to bad code design and terrible programmers who steamrolled security in the name of features.
.conf files, no having to know things like DNS servers or what display adapters work in X and all them "whatchamacallits."
I think in many of the arguments here, a critical fact has been overlooked. Users of MS products generally want the features that allow for the problems we've seen in the past to crop up. The average user wants automation; they don't want to configure software, or have to understand how the system does what it does, they (here it comes) just want it to work. It's this attitude that has fueled MS' design process; they build software that the end user can turn on and have "just work." No fiddling, no
I think that if similar products existed in a Linux environment, we'd still be seeing a lot of the same problems, simply because the level of automation required to satisfy the typical user is inherently insecure. I am willing to concede that a suite of applications built on Linux could be more secure, and that Microsoft definitely has a problem in that the flaws in their system are very deep, however: I can recall a number of occasions where I've seen articles here on Slashdot that announce "security hole in (whatever) allows root access! Come get your patches...." If Linux held sway in the desktop world, why would we expect the typical user to be any more willing or able to patch their OS than if they were using MS systems? Granted, there's fewer holes, but they're still there. If typical user never patches their default OS install, then why shouldn't we expect mass root exploits?
Don't get me wrong; I'm not wholeheartedly defending MS. They could have done things better, but I'm not ready to jump on the "Linux is more secure" bandwagon. I firmly believe that if similar applications had been developed for Linux to meet the same demands that MS has answered, we'd still be seeing problems.
On a related note: I've been using Proxomitron for some time now. It's a proxy server that strips or adds (or does whatever you please, really) HTML to pages you're viewing. Unfortunately, the developer has abandoned it, but the latest version still works, and it's free!
Anyone interested can find it here.
Interesting articles. Unfortunately the Yahoo Finance article doesn't go very deep into the actual research itself. Anyone know of more recent articles not necessarily from a medical or scientific journal (while a journal may provide exceptionally detailed information, they are often written in a manner appropriate for the researchers in the field they cater to, and not the layman)?
Just a quick note (for the general FYI):
:)
Vacuum tubes, while certainly less vulnerable than silicon semiconductors, can be affected by electromagnetic radiation. The damage can range from very minimal (the tube freaks out at the time of EM exposure, but works fine afterwards) up to destructive (the gas inside is supercharged, resulting in a melt-through of the glass portion of the tube, or possible damage to the delicate metal components inside). Of course, if the exposure is enough to start melting vacuum tubes, the chances are good that the operator is being roasted, so in that respect then I guess the concern is minimal.
An interesting number: Counting gun owners only (not total number of firearms, which may be distributed to others in times of crisis), the armed forces of the United States would be outnumbered by 75 to 1. This is including all branches of the military, and all jobs and positions, from file clerks to combat-ready soldiers to mechanics. I don't know about you, but 75 to 1 odds doesn't sound good at all, even with technical superiority.
You can verify these numbers at the DOD website, or at the GAO website (they list total military personnel). As for the number of gun owners (remember, not total firearms), there's statistics at Brady Campaign, the NRA site, the FBI site, to name a few.
As far as less than ideal levels of self control; what happens when those people end up in command of the military? I'm not going to open a whole new can of worms here, but take a look at where the US military is now. Do you think maybe someone acted a little on the hasty side when sending them there?
I generally don't really dislike Microsoft. But I do so hate Powerpoint. It has made it far too easy to assemble pointless, pure vanilla presentations that everyone must sit through while so-and-so clicks the mouse to make each line of text fly onto the screen.
:)
The last time I had to present, I used Flash to build my presentation. It took me a little bit longer to assemble than if I had used Powerpoint, but the results were astounding. People actually paid attention to what I was saying, and the information on the "slides." The only problem was them asking afterwards how I'd gotten Powerpoint to do all that. Heh.
You seem to be equating info about firearms with firearms themselves. Having access to information concerning an organization's legal stance on firearms control laws or even to their articles on particular hunting techniques is very different than having immediate access to a firearm.
If the Brady Campaign advocates further firearm restriction on their site, and the NRA advocates not implementing further restrictions on their site, why is one site any more or less harmful than the other? One is saying there is no good use outside of unmitigated violence, while the other is presenting what they feel are perfectly good uses outside the arena of violence.
The issue at hand is that someone at Symantec is making the decision for you, based on what they feel to be their superior intellect and/or moral compass. If you think that acquiescing to their decisions is right for you, then you are free to install their filters. I prefer to see the information from all sides and draw my own decisions, and I hate to think that anyone else is unknowingly denied that avenue (read: forced to use these filters).
You seem to take a very poor view of the NRA in general. If you wouldn't mind, could you provide links to the articles you mentioned above? I realize the titles may not be the same, but just let us know when the NRA as an organization has published or posted instructions on killing people with Hollywood bravado, or when they've detailed how to maximize the potential of a weapon to kill human beings before your morning meal.
As far as my experience goes, the NRA does not advocate such practices. Maybe you have evidence to the contrary?
Last I had heard, the NRA was not advocating violence. Think about the words you're using; "pro-violence." After careful consideration, do you really think the NRA is pro-violence? My investigations into the subject have not found that to be true.
Putting the semantics of language aside: The issue in this instance is that their sites are filtered on the basis of being "weapons related." Those other sites are most certainly weapons related also. Why aren't they blocked? It's the one-sided censorship that is disturbing here.
I've got a 13 inch television. It was purchased in 1981, last time it was turned on was in 1999. It worked then, but I've re-arranged furniture since and never bothered to plug it back in. I watch television at my friend's homes when there's a reason for a group of us to do so (hockey game or some such), but that's about it. If there's more like me, then the internet is definitely to blame for TV program's falling ratings. :)
You're missing some of the more inflammatory points of the RIAA's tactics here: The amounts they're demanding for compensation. There is no question that they are telling people, in essence, "Settle now for $2/3/4/5000 or we will take you to court and tag you for $15,000,000." We know they are doing this. When they claim "damages" in the amount of $150,000 per file, then people become angry because they know that this claim is unreasonable (think of it: if 10,000 people download a copy of the file from you only, the RIAA is alleging that they lost $15.00 per download on that one song. At that rate, CDs should be priced at about $165.00 each, assuming they average 11 tracks.
This doesn't even touch on legal costs. If the RIAA sends me a letter demanding $2000 in settlement, I have the choice to pay it or hire a lawyer to go to court and represent me. Even if I am innocent, I must hire a competent lawyer and I can expect to pay around $400 per hour for his services. Assuming the case is an "average" civil case and takes 10 hours of the lawyer's time, I'm looking at $4000 in billable hours alone, before filing fees and other costs (the lawyer will charge you for his transit costs and other expenses while defending you). If I try to recover my expenses with a counter-suit, I can expect a lengthy process fueled by a behemoth organization that can afford to put high-priced lawyers on autopilot and forget about them. Innocent people may not like to settle, but sometimes they may take the cheaper way out.
These are the things that make people really angry about what the RIAA is doing. Not that they're defending their properties or business, but that they're doing so in an egregiously "predatory" manner, seemingly outside the conventional channels of the law and with the threatening club of unreasonable penalties to back them up.
I do remember this. The card was designed to beat Winbench. As far as the mfg or the card, I don't remember those.
I know they got caught because they did things too well. The Winbench results were so smokingly fast that the reviewers got suspicious and began checking things out, then blew the company's cover once they were on to the situation.
I know this is a but tin-foil hat of me, but:
What if the escalating spam flood is in fact an organized effort by interested parties to try and eliminate (or at least reduce) the anonymity level of the internet? Whenever a new spam avenue is discovered, or even when the old ones are discussed, the idea of "everyone's identified with their certificate / key" comes around. Could this be a ploy by certain groups to make sure they can tag anyone they want, whether it be by email, web use, or simply by posting to a blog? I'm as annoyed as anyone else by the rising spam tide, but I'm loathe to completely abandon the anonymity of many forms of communication the internet offers; for all the bad it brings with it, it allows for a much more unrestricted exchange, especially for those who may have to deal with governments otherwise opposed to free expression.
The GPS tracked vehicle system would be great; the problem is that many municipality's traffic lights are not tied into any sort of coherent network. If they are, it's usually only in a small portion of the city center. Most of the electronic traffic control systems out there today are or are based upon 1970's era technology and are simple, local-controlled systems installed at each intersection. Until massive upgrades are put in place, the GPS system would be effective at a very few intersections if at all.
Ooo...doesn't look good. Yeah, I'm willing to bet this is another scheme. Good link.
A friend of mine and myself have an ongoing debate on this very topic. I know I'm right because I've seen it happen, but he insists that there's no danger to simply unplugging and plugging in PS2 goodies whenever he pleases. I cringe every time he does it, but so far he's just been lucky.
I think you could increase the rotation schedule a bit by changing the questions asked. Example: In month one you ask "What's in the picture?" A: A boat. Month 2 asks: "What shape are the boat's sails?" etc. This way you could extend the life cycle of pictures to a period of time only limited by the detail level of the picture. Granted, this is labor intensive, and therefore not necessarily a viable option. Until someone develops a system that can fully comprehend the question and analyze the picture for an answer, they'd be stuck. Of course, when they build that system, I really hope it's used for something more noble than SPAM transmission.
I used to do QA for a company that wrote MO jukebox control software (MDI, anyone?), and I'll have to burst your bubble on reliability and shelf life there. Generally the disks were fine, but if you used them extensively (probably not an issue in your situation, since you're going for archiving), they would eventually begin to break down, losing the ability to be re-written, eventually culminating in a disk full of "unwritable" spots that had to be chucked in the bin.
As far as archiving goes, well, maybe it's not so bad as I paint it, but they don't last forever just sitting on a shelf. It's true that you have more stability than standard magnetic media and dye-based (CDR) discs, but you must be very careful about temperature and humidity and still careful about magnetic fields. I have lots of MO carts that are going on 6 years old and I can still read them without a problem, BUT: I've had several disks lose data for no apparent reason. They were all stored together, in a temperature controlled environment away from magnetic fields and they still lost it. Of the 150 or so disks I started with, I've lost about 30. My advice would be to periodically verify and transfer data to new media to avoid that situation. I guess maybe 30 out of 150 isn't bad for 6 years worth of storage, but then I could stand to lose that data; can you stand to lose yours?
The small business I work for has already run into this problem once. We had purchased a very nice piece of software to handle our business phone lines and act as our voicemail system. The software used several hardware IDs to construct a "key" that you would have to send to the software mfg. in order to receive your activation code. Needless to say, we went through the hassle a few times of having to reinstall the software when we upgraded the system or when it crashed. A little over a year into ownership, we needed to reinstall again and guess what; the company had been purchased and the new mgmt. had developed a new product line. They refused to provide an activation code and instead suggested that we buy their new (costlier) version (no upgrade pricing, so sorry). We didn't, and instead opted for another, slightly less feature-rich but still functional product. Apparently we weren't the only ones, since the new Co. is no longer in business.
Nowadays we're stuck with a certain public records access system that requires activation in a similar fashion. You can bet that we keep a vigilant watch for an alternative. As soon as we spot a good one, the switch is in.
So your scenario has played out already, at least to my experience. Like you, I don't forsee any other outcome from other software corps. In fact, I wouldn't put it past them to eventually start requiring online-only activation with expiry dates, ensuring that at some point they can pull the plug on the software and twist your arm into buying the latest version.