That's a very simplistic view of the world and one that only works if the hardware manufacturer only sells a single product or has large jumps in capabilities between products within a family. Suppose Linksys intended to supply many of these features in a more expensive (i.e. more profitable) version of the router. They're now hosed as it is now possible for users to upgrade their firmware for free. So sure, they sell more of the cheaper routers, but this is not what they want. This problem will occur anywhere hardware manufacturers try to take advantage of hardware commonality and differentiating similar products through software based features.
But they have not. All the evidence so far has pointed to the contrary. The only features that Linksys continues to add are hardware features like 802.11g instead of 802.11b, or adding extra ports. So by opening up their software, they reduce the need to do their own R&D in that area, can concentrate more on hardware based R&D and sell even more routers with newer hardware.
If people want more advanced software capabilities, then Cisco does not want people to buy more cheap low-end Linksys products, they want them to upgrade to expensive Cisco-branded products.
Why, would Linksys care if people are creating hacks to add features to their router? That just means more people are going to go out and buy THEIR router!
If Linksys could even go to the length of supporting a development community around their product, and they would have a bunch of extra features for free, since its all GPL. Plus they would entice those developers to buy Linksys, instead of Microsoft or Netgear.
How do you even know the hacker knew it was DoE property? My bet is he probably was port-scanning various subnets, came along and hacked into an unsecured host, and got lucky that it could support so much bandwidth.
More than likely, he probably did not even know that the computer was government owned, or that it was that important. He probably was just a script kiddie who was looking for a fast remote host, to share out movies.
But I think they are over-exposing the Java brand here. Microsoft ran into this problem with.Net, as their marketing department went crazy and started labelling everything with.Net.
I would hate to see Sun make the same mistake, especially considering they have the advantage of seeing what Microsoft did previously.
Examine their research, then make up your mind for yourself whether or not you believe it constitutes good evidence of SCO wrongdoing.
Groklaw is not a brokerage &research firm. Just because they have a bias, doesn't mean clear factual evidence that supports their position is to be ignored.
No, calculus does not change that much. While the applications of it (real-life examples) may change over time, there are no fundamental advances in the field that require a new edition to come out every 2-3 years. Keep in mind I am speaking about general first year and second year undergraduate calculus. I realize that senior/graduate level material under goes changes. But calculus does not undergo major changes at the undergraduate level like programming in computer science does.
If publishers/schools put out a new textbook every 4-5 years, it would not be so bad. But it gets pretty bad, when you have them changing textbooks on the class almost every year, and in some cases every semester.
Please enlighten me. I'm interested to know about all about the amazing advances in obtaining derivatives that has happened in the past 100 years. Oh, wait there are none.
Advances at the high-end senior/graduate mathematics level do not count. They are not fundamental changes in the field.
No, collusion (and by that I mean price-fixing via retailers cooperating to raise prices) IS illegal. It is an anti-competitive behaviour, and just because Microsoft got away with an anti-competitive policy, doesn't mean that all companies can also do it.
If you do not believe me, see the following for more information on legislation regarding competition policy in the United States:
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1-7.
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 12-27.
Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 41-51.
Without collusion among all of the various video rental retailers to raise prices(which is illegal), this would not work. And the distributors are not going to raise prices. That would just mean the independent films will be cheaper, so people would stop renting movies that only succeed because of the marketing behind them.
No, you can't copyright facts like that. It would be as if James Cameron had to get permission from the studios to say 'from the director of Titanic', on any films he did thereafter.
I think you have hit on a very good point. Backwards compatibility is definitly here to stay. The added cost of building in the support for it is small, compared to the benefits they will get from the additional people buying even more games.
Quite simple. They block the importation of all Microsoft products. Sure there would be illegal smuggling of Microsoft products into the EU, but it is quite easy for a government agency (especially one as powerful as the EU) to block a company from doing business.
To answer your second question, yes, the EU by blocking the importation of Microsoft products would stop all EU retailers from purchasing Microsoft products. And even those large companies that deal directly with Microsoft, would be subject to criminal penalties if they tried to ignore the EU's ruling.
In short, it is very easy for a government, once they have the legal backing, to block a large company from doing business in the region/country.
Re:Security could be easily enhanced
on
More MyDoom Gloom
·
· Score: 1
Make bad system adminstrators personally responsible for the damages they create by not fixing security holes.
I doubt this would increase security. But it would certainly increase the salaries of those in the security field. As fewer people would be willing to work in the field, because of the risk of being held personally liable, they would demand higher pay to compensate for this increased risk.
One of the many reasons why doctors are able to demand such high salaries, is because they all have to get liability insurance. This is why holding software vendors completely responsible for security issues is a bad idea. It may marginally increase the security of software, but it will drive up the purchase cost of software significantly.
In short, there is no easy fix to making systems more secure. It takes hard work, like educating both users and admininistrators on proper procedures and secure processes.
Yes. If the fine is in the multi-billions of dollars, the Europeans can no doubt count on the US getting back at them somehow. Just look at the case of steel tarriffs. Bush seems much more apt to start trade wars than his predecessor.
So long as a company does business in the European Union, they can fine them. It doesn't matter where your headquarters are based. Microsoft could ignore the ruling, but they would have to stop doing business in the EU altogether.
Your analogy has one gaping hole in it however; Moore's Law. So long as components keep on falling in price, don't bet against a platform just because it has a larger footprint and memory requirement than other platforms.
Linux will succeed here, because it has very low licensing costs associated with it, and as these devices continue to add on features like wireless networking and Internet connectivity, a general purpose operating system will make even more sense in these smart phones.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a very simplistic view of the world and one that only works if the hardware manufacturer only sells a single product or has large jumps in capabilities between products within a family. Suppose Linksys intended to supply many of these features in a more expensive (i.e. more profitable) version of the router. They're now hosed as it is now possible for users to upgrade their firmware for free. So sure, they sell more of the cheaper routers, but this is not what they want. This problem will occur anywhere hardware manufacturers try to take advantage of hardware commonality and differentiating similar products through software based features.
But they have not. All the evidence so far has pointed to the contrary. The only features that Linksys continues to add are hardware features like 802.11g instead of 802.11b, or adding extra ports. So by opening up their software, they reduce the need to do their own R&D in that area, can concentrate more on hardware based R&D and sell even more routers with newer hardware.
If people want more advanced software capabilities, then Cisco does not want people to buy more cheap low-end Linksys products, they want them to upgrade to expensive Cisco-branded products.
Why, would Linksys care if people are creating hacks to add features to their router? That just means more people are going to go out and buy THEIR router!
If Linksys could even go to the length of supporting a development community around their product, and they would have a bunch of extra features for free, since its all GPL. Plus they would entice those developers to buy Linksys, instead of Microsoft or Netgear.
How do you even know the hacker knew it was DoE property? My bet is he probably was port-scanning various subnets, came along and hacked into an unsecured host, and got lucky that it could support so much bandwidth.
More than likely, he probably did not even know that the computer was government owned, or that it was that important. He probably was just a script kiddie who was looking for a fast remote host, to share out movies.
But I think they are over-exposing the Java brand here. Microsoft ran into this problem with .Net, as their marketing department went crazy and started labelling everything with .Net.
I would hate to see Sun make the same mistake, especially considering they have the advantage of seeing what Microsoft did previously.
Yes companies have to abide by international law too, but no laws were broken here. Amnesty International is just doing this as a publicity stunt.
Examine their research, then make up your mind for yourself whether or not you believe it constitutes good evidence of SCO wrongdoing.
Groklaw is not a brokerage &research firm. Just because they have a bias, doesn't mean clear factual evidence that supports their position is to be ignored.
No, calculus does not change that much. While the applications of it (real-life examples) may change over time, there are no fundamental advances in the field that require a new edition to come out every 2-3 years. Keep in mind I am speaking about general first year and second year undergraduate calculus. I realize that senior/graduate level material under goes changes. But calculus does not undergo major changes at the undergraduate level like programming in computer science does.
If publishers/schools put out a new textbook every 4-5 years, it would not be so bad. But it gets pretty bad, when you have them changing textbooks on the class almost every year, and in some cases every semester.
Please enlighten me. I'm interested to know about all about the amazing advances in obtaining derivatives that has happened in the past 100 years. Oh, wait there are none.
Advances at the high-end senior/graduate mathematics level do not count. They are not fundamental changes in the field.
No, collusion (and by that I mean price-fixing via retailers cooperating to raise prices) IS illegal. It is an anti-competitive behaviour, and just because Microsoft got away with an anti-competitive policy, doesn't mean that all companies can also do it.
If you do not believe me, see the following for more information on legislation regarding competition policy in the United States:
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1-7.
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 12-27.
Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 41-51.
Or perhaps E-Voting, Texas Style.
Without collusion among all of the various video rental retailers to raise prices(which is illegal), this would not work. And the distributors are not going to raise prices. That would just mean the independent films will be cheaper, so people would stop renting movies that only succeed because of the marketing behind them.
No. HP has a market cap of about $76 billion. IBM is valued at about $150 billion.
Ever heard of floating point numbers?
Well after SCO goes bankrupt, I'm sure Darl will be available for a position at Disney!
No, you can't copyright facts like that. It would be as if James Cameron had to get permission from the studios to say 'from the director of Titanic', on any films he did thereafter.
I think you have hit on a very good point. Backwards compatibility is definitly here to stay. The added cost of building in the support for it is small, compared to the benefits they will get from the additional people buying even more games.
The .com and .net servers are not the same as the root servers.
It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.
You mean the third option, right?
Quite simple. They block the importation of all Microsoft products. Sure there would be illegal smuggling of Microsoft products into the EU, but it is quite easy for a government agency (especially one as powerful as the EU) to block a company from doing business.
To answer your second question, yes, the EU by blocking the importation of Microsoft products would stop all EU retailers from purchasing Microsoft products. And even those large companies that deal directly with Microsoft, would be subject to criminal penalties if they tried to ignore the EU's ruling.
In short, it is very easy for a government, once they have the legal backing, to block a large company from doing business in the region/country.
Make bad system adminstrators personally responsible for the damages they create by not fixing security holes.
I doubt this would increase security. But it would certainly increase the salaries of those in the security field. As fewer people would be willing to work in the field, because of the risk of being held personally liable, they would demand higher pay to compensate for this increased risk.
One of the many reasons why doctors are able to demand such high salaries, is because they all have to get liability insurance. This is why holding software vendors completely responsible for security issues is a bad idea. It may marginally increase the security of software, but it will drive up the purchase cost of software significantly.
In short, there is no easy fix to making systems more secure. It takes hard work, like educating both users and admininistrators on proper procedures and secure processes.
Yes. If the fine is in the multi-billions of dollars, the Europeans can no doubt count on the US getting back at them somehow. Just look at the case of steel tarriffs. Bush seems much more apt to start trade wars than his predecessor.
So long as a company does business in the European Union, they can fine them. It doesn't matter where your headquarters are based. Microsoft could ignore the ruling, but they would have to stop doing business in the EU altogether.
Your analogy has one gaping hole in it however; Moore's Law. So long as components keep on falling in price, don't bet against a platform just because it has a larger footprint and memory requirement than other platforms.
Linux will succeed here, because it has very low licensing costs associated with it, and as these devices continue to add on features like wireless networking and Internet connectivity, a general purpose operating system will make even more sense in these smart phones.
Lower licensing costs than J2ME?