And religions being what they are.. like to fight amongst themselves.
Considering that the atheist crowd likes to throw their hat in the ring too, my guess is that people like to fight in general. Religion is big just because there is so much on the line, not unlike politics.
Debate and struggle is human nature. Without some new lands to conquest over humanity will likely die out. Boredom will be the cause.
Not knowing a lot about the type of traveling you're doing or your own needs... When I travel I take my GPS. I have a Garmin iQue M5. I only have the North America pack for it so traveling overseas may require additional software but it works well for me. Since I only keep a 512 meg card in it it's also useful to get the details of a local area loaded to it with the laptop. I don't know if they have Mac software for it but none the less, that's what I like to keep handy.
Also, in my times of travel I've never had anything stolen or lost. I don't know how common that kind of thing really is.
Guy, without considering profits first and foremost a business will not remain a business for long. Any business that has thrived has put profits first at some point in their lifespan. Probably a majority of their lifespan would be a very safe bet. So if you consider bankruptcy as being lively, creative and good I guess you're not going to find many other kinds of businesses out there.
You make the profit angle seem one sided. It is not. Dell makes money by selling computers and by selling copies of MSOffice. If they include OpenOffice for free or for a small support fee that just covers those support costs they might sell fewer copies of MSOffice, but they also might sell more computers because their computers are now better than the competition who does not include a free Office suite. It is called a "value added" gambit. Now it may be that Dell has looked hard at the numbers and feels that right now they can make more money not offering OpenOffice, but then Dell is also slipping in market share and no longer holds the top spot. If a competitor decides to undercut them by installing OpenOffice, it makes them vulnerable.
While I do see your point and tend to agree with you, you must also consider that anyone can download OO. I'm not going to switch from HP (my personal favorite) to Dell for OO. Granted, I'm certainly more in the know about OO than Joe Sixpack but if the market really does change based on the OO offering it won't be long until people who desire OO will realize that there is no need to go to Dell for OO. Even if they decide to offer support for OO through their own customer service they're going to need to jack the prices a bit for the new overhead costs. Offering OO at a small fee may help offset this but they're going to lose their marketing edge at the same time by charging for the tech support. Offering OO is a tough situation and one that I don't think is going to help Dell in the long run.
Funny. Actually, Dell could easily make OpenOffice their own and do support in house. They have a few coders and the source is right there for them to submit changes to. OpenOffice gives them more options for getting support, not fewer. They can go with in house, OpenOffice.org, a third party, or Sun and take bids from all concerned. With MS they can go with MS and hope for the best.
But you're talking about more overhead in the way of a new development division and the loss of MS profits from Office sales. Somehow I don't think these wash too well with the CFO and his bean counters. While they may be able to break even you're talking about putting a proven model against a risky new model. Even if you could break even on paper you'd still be making a hard sell of this to the financial portion of the company. Not saying that it can't be done but I'd place my money on the existing model winning. "Better the devil you know" kind of thing.
I'm unconvinced that a significant portion of their support cost are escalations to software vendors. I suspect almost all of it is faulty hardware, or user failure to understand what is going on at a basic level. Why would you assume otherwise?
Actually, I'm not assuming otherwise. The failure to understand what is going on at a basic level is exactly what will cause this overhead to increase. While you may be fairly knowledgeable about OO and other software packages Joe Sixpack and Grandma Kegger are a whole different story. They buy a Dell, they know the machine isn't working right for some reason. Who are they going to turn to? Even if they are smart enough to figure out the problem is with MSO/OO you'll still have a portion of them looking at Dell for answers. After all, Dell support is included? Right?
I work for a large pharmaceutical distributor. We do mail-order pharmacy and we have a substantial customer service center. The number of calls that we get that aren't related to our distribution of the product is pretty high. Some of these are questions that should be going to the manufacturer or a doctor yet come to us instead. This is the way things work in the mind of Joe Sixpack. I have no reason to believe it will be different for Dell.
Hopefully the guys running Dell have a bit better education than that. There is a real business case for OpenOffice and money that can be made from support margins and that business case is more and more reasonable the tighter margins on
A somewhat obvious question is raised: why isn't OpenOffice already available by default on new PC's and Workstations?
Obvious? What's obvious is that Dell can make a profit from MS Office. Frankly, if I were a business I would look to the profit aspect first.
Also consider tech support. I would think that Dell is going to get more support from MS than the OO people when it comes down to wide spread issues involving their product. Tech support is doubtlessly a large chunk of Dell's overhead. The better support from their software vendors the less that overhead will be. That's a big plus and anyone who's taken business-101 type classes can tell you this.
Not to mention that free software still has a stigma about it. This isn't likely to go away anytime soon.
Absolutely. We do see smaller projects of this nature in some locations. Solar power has become big among people wanting to run smaller devices without hard-wiring them. Some of these are no so obvious as "lawn lights" but others would be radio repeaters and the like.
[Interesting] how often third world countries embrace alternative sources where as we're told they are too expensive in the first world.
That's the exact reason they're too expensive: We have an existing delivery system in place that they can't afford to build. I think the concept of massively overhauling our existing large systems is going to massively drain what resources we already have.
I have Ubuntu running as a VM on my dv9035 with no problems. I do not have Linux running native on any laptop so I can't speak for it but I'm guessing that my VM install would handle just as if it were installed directly on the laptop. Maybe others can verify this or set me straight on the difference.
Is this an example of free speech and anonymity gone too far, or is internet trolling just a necessary side effect of a policy that otherwise promotes insightful discussion of the legal community?
I have not read the article so I'm taking a blind shot at this.
If the "free speech" takes the form of slander or threats it has gone too far. If not I don't think there would be a problem with it.
Blind trolling of message boards can devalue their legitimacy, that's something any administrator of such a forum has to deal with in his own way.
Your laptop suits your needs, not the needs of the person you were replying to. There is not one computer for everyone, get over it.
You've missed the point. I explained in my post (you'd know this if you bothered to read it) that not every solution fits every need. Why he feels the need to rail against large format notebook owners is beyond me and his "points" are invalid.
What troubles me the most is that he seems to blame people who like large format notebooks for the markets lack of subnotebooks. This is an insane position.
Your point would be valid if I came on here ranting that anyone who thinks they need a subnotebook is just foolish and that they're defeating the purpose of owning a notebook at all.
Do I really need 15+ inches of real estate on my laptop screen for anything?
Just because you have no use for that much space doesn't mean others don't. I have a HP with a 17 inch display (actually my second 17 inch laptop) and I will not go back without good reason. I have tons of room to keep a working document/application open and have a webpage or PDF open on the other half of the screen if I need reference material. Coding on a larger display is great too because you're not having to constantly move widgets out of your way to make room for something else (you MSVS users know exactly what I'm talking about) and yes, I can play EQ2 or CS on it.
How many people are still running at 800x600 on a 17" screen because it makes everything "look bigger"?
You're missing the practical side of things that so many slashdot users seem to overlook. If a user needs a large screen with a low resolution to make it workable for their physical limitations than that's what they need. There is no substitute for this type of functionality. This attitude of "put up or shut up" doesn't go over real well with the consumer sector and it's their support you need to put out a product that sells. It amazes me that so many people are willing to sacrifice usability and functionality for another user and not understand why the general user community doesn't want to have to deal with them or their product. Maybe another solution works for you, fine, but don't act like everyone has the same needs and wants that you do and then act surprised when they turn their back on your "solution" to their problem.
Doesn't a 15+ inch screen sort of defeat the purpose of a "portable" computer? I mean, technically a 47-pound G3 fruit-flavored iMac is "portable" because it's one piece and has a handle.
Ah, if my HP weighed 40 pounds I'd tend to agree with you to a point but it weighs 8 pounds. This is no great hardship for me and (apparently as the larger notebooks are selling well) many others. If lugging this kind of weight around for you is a problem and you need something smaller; go for it. No one is stopping you.
Instead of having a fit over what suits other peoples needs I think you need to find something that suits yours. If it's not out there than that's the breaks but don't act like it's the fault of people who like large format notebooks. If my choices came down to your dream notebook or nothing I'd choose nothing since your solution is not my solution.
The North American consumer generally believes that bigger is better. Although this attitude is changing slowly, people will still be floored when a subnotebook with limited features costs almost twice what a 17" behemoth that plays movies, runs all their programs, walks the dog, and makes breakfast would.
What if we don't want limited features? What if we want something that works to our standards? It's my money, pal. I'm going to buy what suits my needs. If I had to put up with a smaller crippled unit I'd just go to using a PDA. At least that I can stick in my jacket pocket.
My laptop suits all of my needs. It's 17 inches. I don't mind the extra weight. Get over it.
Perhaps the math works out to a point but that doesn't make it sound. Why would MS put out a trillion license for something that probably will never go over a couple of billion (tops).
Or are you claiming that MS is purposely leaving itself open to having keys that are easier to hack by going way over the number they'll ever likely need?
If your math makes more sense to you than this logic please tell me you don't work in either a security intensive or data storage intensive position.
BTW: not to be overbearing about my point but you'll also note that the original sentiment was "hundreds of millions", not 10 million. So by your logic that would make it 10^13 as a minimum. Assume that the number is 500 million. that leave a hugh area of potential sales vs. working license. You're just asking to be hacked at that point.
I would bet that the size of the legitimate keyspace is much larger than "hundreds of millions", probably by several orders of magnitude
Several orders of magnitude? Are you suggesting that there are as many Vista keys as stars in the sky? I don't think this term means what you think it means.
Someone's playing lawyer here, and it's not me. When a computer is involved, "making available" inherently results in copies being made. It makes a hell of a lot more sense for the law to be changed to reflect reality than to try to warp reality to reflect an outdated law.
The current law doesn't require it because once you get past the technobabble aspect of the problem it still applies equally. No one has or is going to try to fine users because their PC has to copy a file to memory while being used. You know this and I know this.
If people were historically unwilling to protest unjust laws by breaking them, the world would be a pretty ugly place.
Sometime protest can take the form of breaking a law, yes, but these people taking copyright-protected media from the internet are not doing it in a manner that benefits the spirit of protest. If someone was publicly doing this and screaming "watch me break the stupid law" I would grant you that would be a protest. People sitting in their basements and downloading album after album and putting it on their iPods and hoping to not get caught is not a protest. Protests must be public and the objection to the law must be stated. This is not happening here. What if Rosa Parks would have sat in the front seat of an empty bus?
That's not a troll, that's the legitimate and appropriate response to your statement.
Whatever. Keep thinking the way you think. It doesn't bother me nor does it bother me when people get arrested/sued for breaking copyright laws. I stand by what I have said.
I can't understand exactly what you're getting at but if your speaking of Linux? Sure, there is a place for it today and it's role may expand in the future. It seems that way at least. I can see where people would want Linux preinstalled but with the number of distros and such if I were to buy a Linux laptop/PC I'd much rather just go with something that is certified instead of preinstalled.
A few factors I've considered from Dell's aspect is that: They may not be working closely enough with any Linux group to feel comfortable about putting their name with the product. They'd have to have some inroads with the "deep" Linux crowd to be able to foresee changes that may cause issues for them in the long run. Putting out hardware just to find out that your software provider is changing direction that you can't support is a bad deal for everyone. I think this is also good (as in business sense) for them to release non-OS PCs with a Linux certification... they won't be held to support Linux but still offer the hardware option. If something would change within Linux that would make their existing hardware uncertifiable I doubt that former customers would have much of a leg to stand on as far as a binding contract with Dell. Either way they would be able to wash their hands of the matter with little cost to themselves.
I honestly don't understand why people are pissing and moaning so much over this. Putting the Linux certified label on a machine is as good, IMHO, as preinstalling the software. Aside from software support from Dell what would one have to lose? I feel the same for Windows to be honest. If I bought a machine that was XP certified but I had to put my own copy of XP on it I wouldn't feel too bad. I know, the XP costs money where Linux doesn't. I feel that paying more for a non-OS PC compared to a Windows PC is shady but maybe there are more support costs that Dell can't simply say "you installed it, you deal with it". I don't know what the legal aspect of that is.
Furthermore, companies are paid to appreciate _every_ customer from Joe Sixpack to Joe Suxtact.
LOL! that's the funniest thing i've read in ages. are you really that naive? companies want to turn a profit. if an element of the marketplaces is (or at least appears) unprofitable they will not go there.
It also means that - as discussed in this thread - "Making Available" copyrighted material is legit. Now, it turns out that "making available" with a computer involves implicit copies. Trying to figure out what step of sharing copies is illegal is quite interesting, because it's not entirely clear.
You're playing word lawyer here. Making some work available by lending the work is not the same as making it available by giving out copies. If you can't understand this than you can not understand the intent of the copyright law in general. I'm sorry. Or if you just choose to ignore the difference be that as it may, I simply won't bother discussing it with you. Once the "cuffs are on your hands" your willing ignorance of this law won't seem so cute. Again, that doesn't mean I support existing law but it is what it is. Either you can play by the rules or you can work to change the existing law. Breaking it as a form of protest isn't valid, IHMO and in the opinion of many others.
Warping and crippling the functionality of computer systems work in order to duplicate the commercial properties of books is absurd.
Don't use it then. That's your option.
Just because I've enjoyed a copyrighted work does not mean that I owe someone money. This fact is generally accepted and not the least bit legally questionable - in the case of borrowing the copyrighted work from a library. I'm definitely against making book-lending libraries illegal.
Someone was paid for that none the less. Again, you're trying to be cute by wrangling any little loophole you can find in the words I use. If you really think that you're this clever why don't you simply go to the courts with it?
The distinction is significantly less relevant than you seem to think
OK, once we hack through your technobabble logic the bottom line is still that libraries lend materials and don't hand out copies.
Think what you will of copyright and people making a living off of producing this type of material in whatever form but it's still illegal. If you want to change the law to fit your argument go ahead and try. Don't be surprised when a lot of very low quality works are the result of this all.
Yes - that means that selling computerized versions of books isn't going to work if libraries lend out computer files.
What if they can only hand out one "copy" at a time? or that it's limited use? Not much unlike the Zune example I gave.
Making it into a big deal is silly - this isn't a printing press where "making a copy" is hard work
I don't consider taking just wages away from someone who produces them as silly. The words on those pages and the songs on that CD don't just appear and then someone gets paid to reproduce them. People actually make this stuff and other people make the equipment it takes to produce the works, so on and so forth. You're acting like the only effort and expense in this chain of production is simply the last step. Far from it.
Maybe that's ok - not everything has to be a new revenue source
That's true and there is tons of PD works out there. So why steal from those who'd like to make a bit of money off of their efforts?
There is enough PD stuff out there to keep any human busy for a few lifetimes, there are tons of artists who give away tons of work. If your beef is really with the guy making a buck from the production of these works do the right thing and boycott him. Stealing from him only shows that he's making a valid work and some people are just to cheap to pay for it.
And frankly, I think they're right. If you feel good enough about listening to/watching/reading something someone produced then payment should be made if that's the artists desire. That doesn't mean I support the 70 years after death copyright style laws (at least not always, some stuff isn't so clear cut). Is there a better way to do this? Sure. Is taking works without payment the answer? Hell no.
So, I don't really see how you can make a clear, legal distinction between a teacher making a few dozen copies of a book that's been out of print for years to show to her class, and a kid throwing out a few hundred copies of his mp3 collection.
You're missing the difference between getting caught and getting away with something. Just because Teacher X isn't getting sued over their action doesn't mean it's legal.
I'm sure if there was a way for a photocopier to recognize that an article/book/whatever is being made in a manner not within the legal aspects of fair use that there would be lawsuits pending.
Just as with copying... The RIAA had little to no cases against people making copies of cassettes, CDs or whatever in the 80s aside from outright pirates. Why's that? Because there was no easy way to tell that you made 17 copies of a Flock of Seagulls album and passed it out. It's a practice that is generally winked at because finding and prosecuting the guilty is like finding needles in a haystack. Today it's different. You don't need a legion of investigators or guys in trench coats taking pictures of bootleg vendors on the street. I could identify (by IP only mind you) hundreds of copyright violators from my PC with next to no effort.
Libraries lend materials, files on the internet are copied.
Granted, plenty of people copy works from the libraries outside of fair use standards but that's not the intended use by the library.
This is probably the same reason the Zune "Squirt" (is that the right term for it?) thing is kinda winked on, it's not a permanent copy but rather a lending of materials.
On average people are replacing their phones every 18 months. Moreover the market for unlocked phones is huge so people who have to spend MSRP is already there.
I'm extremely skeptical of this. Unless you can quote some figures from a reliable source I kinda have to shrug this off. I know tons of people and some people who are willing to pay out the ass on gadgets but I don't know a single person who has ever bought a phone off-contract aside from phone failure.
Smartphones are in the $400-$600 range now.
Yeah, for a phone I can install my own apps on and get from various carriers. I don't think the apps problems is that big of an issue but it will change the minds of some. As for carriers? Most people don't complain about their phones as much as their carriers. I'd think loyalty works the same way. I know I won't leave my carrier for this phone from what I know of it.
When phone/PDA combos first came out they were $1000.
I bought my first StarTAC for a few hundred dollars, today they can't give them away in cracker jack boxes. What's your point?
Seems to me that Apple is smart to go after the MS Windows-for-phones segment of the market.
In what way? Just another instance of high priced proprietary hardware to go with a closed source software. Just like in the PC market. And the design certainly won't last. Unless the iPhone is going to have a really slick UI I just don't see the appeal. Even then, how many people buy phones for a UI?
I've never seen an "innovation" in the cell market that hasn't been copied within 3 months. Considering how far ahead of release Apple started touting these things you might see a similar concept from a large cell manufacturer before the iPhone is even available.
Slashdot Mirror
And religions being what they are.. like to fight amongst themselves.
Considering that the atheist crowd likes to throw their hat in the ring too, my guess is that people like to fight in general. Religion is big just because there is so much on the line, not unlike politics.
Debate and struggle is human nature. Without some new lands to conquest over humanity will likely die out. Boredom will be the cause.
Not knowing a lot about the type of traveling you're doing or your own needs... When I travel I take my GPS. I have a Garmin iQue M5. I only have the North America pack for it so traveling overseas may require additional software but it works well for me. Since I only keep a 512 meg card in it it's also useful to get the details of a local area loaded to it with the laptop. I don't know if they have Mac software for it but none the less, that's what I like to keep handy.
Also, in my times of travel I've never had anything stolen or lost. I don't know how common that kind of thing really is.
Hey don't put down DeVry. When I went there it was a great school... oh, wait....
Guy, without considering profits first and foremost a business will not remain a business for long. Any business that has thrived has put profits first at some point in their lifespan. Probably a majority of their lifespan would be a very safe bet. So if you consider bankruptcy as being lively, creative and good I guess you're not going to find many other kinds of businesses out there.
You make the profit angle seem one sided. It is not. Dell makes money by selling computers and by selling copies of MSOffice. If they include OpenOffice for free or for a small support fee that just covers those support costs they might sell fewer copies of MSOffice, but they also might sell more computers because their computers are now better than the competition who does not include a free Office suite. It is called a "value added" gambit. Now it may be that Dell has looked hard at the numbers and feels that right now they can make more money not offering OpenOffice, but then Dell is also slipping in market share and no longer holds the top spot. If a competitor decides to undercut them by installing OpenOffice, it makes them vulnerable.
While I do see your point and tend to agree with you, you must also consider that anyone can download OO. I'm not going to switch from HP (my personal favorite) to Dell for OO. Granted, I'm certainly more in the know about OO than Joe Sixpack but if the market really does change based on the OO offering it won't be long until people who desire OO will realize that there is no need to go to Dell for OO. Even if they decide to offer support for OO through their own customer service they're going to need to jack the prices a bit for the new overhead costs. Offering OO at a small fee may help offset this but they're going to lose their marketing edge at the same time by charging for the tech support. Offering OO is a tough situation and one that I don't think is going to help Dell in the long run.
Funny. Actually, Dell could easily make OpenOffice their own and do support in house. They have a few coders and the source is right there for them to submit changes to. OpenOffice gives them more options for getting support, not fewer. They can go with in house, OpenOffice.org, a third party, or Sun and take bids from all concerned. With MS they can go with MS and hope for the best.
But you're talking about more overhead in the way of a new development division and the loss of MS profits from Office sales. Somehow I don't think these wash too well with the CFO and his bean counters. While they may be able to break even you're talking about putting a proven model against a risky new model. Even if you could break even on paper you'd still be making a hard sell of this to the financial portion of the company. Not saying that it can't be done but I'd place my money on the existing model winning. "Better the devil you know" kind of thing.
I'm unconvinced that a significant portion of their support cost are escalations to software vendors. I suspect almost all of it is faulty hardware, or user failure to understand what is going on at a basic level. Why would you assume otherwise?
Actually, I'm not assuming otherwise. The failure to understand what is going on at a basic level is exactly what will cause this overhead to increase. While you may be fairly knowledgeable about OO and other software packages Joe Sixpack and Grandma Kegger are a whole different story. They buy a Dell, they know the machine isn't working right for some reason. Who are they going to turn to? Even if they are smart enough to figure out the problem is with MSO/OO you'll still have a portion of them looking at Dell for answers. After all, Dell support is included? Right?
I work for a large pharmaceutical distributor. We do mail-order pharmacy and we have a substantial customer service center. The number of calls that we get that aren't related to our distribution of the product is pretty high. Some of these are questions that should be going to the manufacturer or a doctor yet come to us instead. This is the way things work in the mind of Joe Sixpack. I have no reason to believe it will be different for Dell.
Hopefully the guys running Dell have a bit better education than that. There is a real business case for OpenOffice and money that can be made from support margins and that business case is more and more reasonable the tighter margins on
A somewhat obvious question is raised: why isn't OpenOffice already available by default on new PC's and Workstations?
Obvious? What's obvious is that Dell can make a profit from MS Office. Frankly, if I were a business I would look to the profit aspect first.
Also consider tech support. I would think that Dell is going to get more support from MS than the OO people when it comes down to wide spread issues involving their product. Tech support is doubtlessly a large chunk of Dell's overhead. The better support from their software vendors the less that overhead will be. That's a big plus and anyone who's taken business-101 type classes can tell you this.
Not to mention that free software still has a stigma about it. This isn't likely to go away anytime soon.
Absolutely. We do see smaller projects of this nature in some locations. Solar power has become big among people wanting to run smaller devices without hard-wiring them. Some of these are no so obvious as "lawn lights" but others would be radio repeaters and the like.
[Interesting] how often third world countries embrace alternative sources where as we're told they are too expensive in the first world.
That's the exact reason they're too expensive: We have an existing delivery system in place that they can't afford to build. I think the concept of massively overhauling our existing large systems is going to massively drain what resources we already have.
Start the "your momma is so fat, when she was in Nevada..." jokes in 3... 2... 1...
I have Ubuntu running as a VM on my dv9035 with no problems. I do not have Linux running native on any laptop so I can't speak for it but I'm guessing that my VM install would handle just as if it were installed directly on the laptop. Maybe others can verify this or set me straight on the difference.
Is this an example of free speech and anonymity gone too far, or is internet trolling just a necessary side effect of a policy that otherwise promotes insightful discussion of the legal community?
I have not read the article so I'm taking a blind shot at this.
If the "free speech" takes the form of slander or threats it has gone too far. If not I don't think there would be a problem with it.
Blind trolling of message boards can devalue their legitimacy, that's something any administrator of such a forum has to deal with in his own way.
Your laptop suits your needs, not the needs of the person you were replying to. There is not one computer for everyone, get over it.
You've missed the point. I explained in my post (you'd know this if you bothered to read it) that not every solution fits every need. Why he feels the need to rail against large format notebook owners is beyond me and his "points" are invalid.
What troubles me the most is that he seems to blame people who like large format notebooks for the markets lack of subnotebooks. This is an insane position.
Your point would be valid if I came on here ranting that anyone who thinks they need a subnotebook is just foolish and that they're defeating the purpose of owning a notebook at all.
Do I really need 15+ inches of real estate on my laptop screen for anything?
Just because you have no use for that much space doesn't mean others don't. I have a HP with a 17 inch display (actually my second 17 inch laptop) and I will not go back without good reason. I have tons of room to keep a working document/application open and have a webpage or PDF open on the other half of the screen if I need reference material. Coding on a larger display is great too because you're not having to constantly move widgets out of your way to make room for something else (you MSVS users know exactly what I'm talking about) and yes, I can play EQ2 or CS on it.
How many people are still running at 800x600 on a 17" screen because it makes everything "look bigger"?
You're missing the practical side of things that so many slashdot users seem to overlook. If a user needs a large screen with a low resolution to make it workable for their physical limitations than that's what they need. There is no substitute for this type of functionality. This attitude of "put up or shut up" doesn't go over real well with the consumer sector and it's their support you need to put out a product that sells. It amazes me that so many people are willing to sacrifice usability and functionality for another user and not understand why the general user community doesn't want to have to deal with them or their product. Maybe another solution works for you, fine, but don't act like everyone has the same needs and wants that you do and then act surprised when they turn their back on your "solution" to their problem.
Doesn't a 15+ inch screen sort of defeat the purpose of a "portable" computer? I mean, technically a 47-pound G3 fruit-flavored iMac is "portable" because it's one piece and has a handle.
Ah, if my HP weighed 40 pounds I'd tend to agree with you to a point but it weighs 8 pounds. This is no great hardship for me and (apparently as the larger notebooks are selling well) many others. If lugging this kind of weight around for you is a problem and you need something smaller; go for it. No one is stopping you.
Instead of having a fit over what suits other peoples needs I think you need to find something that suits yours. If it's not out there than that's the breaks but don't act like it's the fault of people who like large format notebooks. If my choices came down to your dream notebook or nothing I'd choose nothing since your solution is not my solution.
The North American consumer generally believes that bigger is better. Although this attitude is changing slowly, people will still be floored when a subnotebook with limited features costs almost twice what a 17" behemoth that plays movies, runs all their programs, walks the dog, and makes breakfast would.
What if we don't want limited features? What if we want something that works to our standards? It's my money, pal. I'm going to buy what suits my needs. If I had to put up with a smaller crippled unit I'd just go to using a PDA. At least that I can stick in my jacket pocket.
My laptop suits all of my needs. It's 17 inches. I don't mind the extra weight. Get over it.
Perhaps the math works out to a point but that doesn't make it sound. Why would MS put out a trillion license for something that probably will never go over a couple of billion (tops).
Or are you claiming that MS is purposely leaving itself open to having keys that are easier to hack by going way over the number they'll ever likely need?
If your math makes more sense to you than this logic please tell me you don't work in either a security intensive or data storage intensive position.
BTW: not to be overbearing about my point but you'll also note that the original sentiment was "hundreds of millions", not 10 million. So by your logic that would make it 10^13 as a minimum. Assume that the number is 500 million. that leave a hugh area of potential sales vs. working license. You're just asking to be hacked at that point.
I would bet that the size of the legitimate keyspace is much larger than "hundreds of millions", probably by several orders of magnitude
Several orders of magnitude? Are you suggesting that there are as many Vista keys as stars in the sky? I don't think this term means what you think it means.
Someone's playing lawyer here, and it's not me. When a computer is involved, "making available" inherently results in copies being made. It makes a hell of a lot more sense for the law to be changed to reflect reality than to try to warp reality to reflect an outdated law.
The current law doesn't require it because once you get past the technobabble aspect of the problem it still applies equally. No one has or is going to try to fine users because their PC has to copy a file to memory while being used. You know this and I know this.
If people were historically unwilling to protest unjust laws by breaking them, the world would be a pretty ugly place.
Sometime protest can take the form of breaking a law, yes, but these people taking copyright-protected media from the internet are not doing it in a manner that benefits the spirit of protest. If someone was publicly doing this and screaming "watch me break the stupid law" I would grant you that would be a protest. People sitting in their basements and downloading album after album and putting it on their iPods and hoping to not get caught is not a protest. Protests must be public and the objection to the law must be stated. This is not happening here. What if Rosa Parks would have sat in the front seat of an empty bus?
That's not a troll, that's the legitimate and appropriate response to your statement.
Whatever. Keep thinking the way you think. It doesn't bother me nor does it bother me when people get arrested/sued for breaking copyright laws. I stand by what I have said.
I can't understand exactly what you're getting at but if your speaking of Linux? Sure, there is a place for it today and it's role may expand in the future. It seems that way at least. I can see where people would want Linux preinstalled but with the number of distros and such if I were to buy a Linux laptop/PC I'd much rather just go with something that is certified instead of preinstalled.
A few factors I've considered from Dell's aspect is that: They may not be working closely enough with any Linux group to feel comfortable about putting their name with the product. They'd have to have some inroads with the "deep" Linux crowd to be able to foresee changes that may cause issues for them in the long run. Putting out hardware just to find out that your software provider is changing direction that you can't support is a bad deal for everyone. I think this is also good (as in business sense) for them to release non-OS PCs with a Linux certification... they won't be held to support Linux but still offer the hardware option. If something would change within Linux that would make their existing hardware uncertifiable I doubt that former customers would have much of a leg to stand on as far as a binding contract with Dell. Either way they would be able to wash their hands of the matter with little cost to themselves.
I honestly don't understand why people are pissing and moaning so much over this. Putting the Linux certified label on a machine is as good, IMHO, as preinstalling the software. Aside from software support from Dell what would one have to lose? I feel the same for Windows to be honest. If I bought a machine that was XP certified but I had to put my own copy of XP on it I wouldn't feel too bad. I know, the XP costs money where Linux doesn't. I feel that paying more for a non-OS PC compared to a Windows PC is shady but maybe there are more support costs that Dell can't simply say "you installed it, you deal with it". I don't know what the legal aspect of that is.
Furthermore, companies are paid to appreciate _every_ customer from Joe Sixpack to Joe Suxtact.
LOL! that's the funniest thing i've read in ages. are you really that naive? companies want to turn a profit. if an element of the marketplaces is (or at least appears) unprofitable they will not go there.
you're a funny funny man.
It also means that - as discussed in this thread - "Making Available" copyrighted material is legit. Now, it turns out that "making available" with a computer involves implicit copies. Trying to figure out what step of sharing copies is illegal is quite interesting, because it's not entirely clear.
You're playing word lawyer here. Making some work available by lending the work is not the same as making it available by giving out copies. If you can't understand this than you can not understand the intent of the copyright law in general. I'm sorry. Or if you just choose to ignore the difference be that as it may, I simply won't bother discussing it with you. Once the "cuffs are on your hands" your willing ignorance of this law won't seem so cute. Again, that doesn't mean I support existing law but it is what it is. Either you can play by the rules or you can work to change the existing law. Breaking it as a form of protest isn't valid, IHMO and in the opinion of many others.
Warping and crippling the functionality of computer systems work in order to duplicate the commercial properties of books is absurd.
Don't use it then. That's your option.
Just because I've enjoyed a copyrighted work does not mean that I owe someone money. This fact is generally accepted and not the least bit legally questionable - in the case of borrowing the copyrighted work from a library. I'm definitely against making book-lending libraries illegal.
Someone was paid for that none the less. Again, you're trying to be cute by wrangling any little loophole you can find in the words I use. If you really think that you're this clever why don't you simply go to the courts with it?
As far as libraries? So what? I buy my own books.
The distinction is significantly less relevant than you seem to think
OK, once we hack through your technobabble logic the bottom line is still that libraries lend materials and don't hand out copies.
Think what you will of copyright and people making a living off of producing this type of material in whatever form but it's still illegal. If you want to change the law to fit your argument go ahead and try. Don't be surprised when a lot of very low quality works are the result of this all.
Yes - that means that selling computerized versions of books isn't going to work if libraries lend out computer files.
What if they can only hand out one "copy" at a time? or that it's limited use? Not much unlike the Zune example I gave.
Making it into a big deal is silly - this isn't a printing press where "making a copy" is hard work
I don't consider taking just wages away from someone who produces them as silly. The words on those pages and the songs on that CD don't just appear and then someone gets paid to reproduce them. People actually make this stuff and other people make the equipment it takes to produce the works, so on and so forth. You're acting like the only effort and expense in this chain of production is simply the last step. Far from it.
Maybe that's ok - not everything has to be a new revenue source
That's true and there is tons of PD works out there. So why steal from those who'd like to make a bit of money off of their efforts?
There is enough PD stuff out there to keep any human busy for a few lifetimes, there are tons of artists who give away tons of work. If your beef is really with the guy making a buck from the production of these works do the right thing and boycott him. Stealing from him only shows that he's making a valid work and some people are just to cheap to pay for it.
And frankly, I think they're right. If you feel good enough about listening to/watching/reading something someone produced then payment should be made if that's the artists desire. That doesn't mean I support the 70 years after death copyright style laws (at least not always, some stuff isn't so clear cut). Is there a better way to do this? Sure. Is taking works without payment the answer? Hell no.
So, I don't really see how you can make a clear, legal distinction between a teacher making a few dozen copies of a book that's been out of print for years to show to her class, and a kid throwing out a few hundred copies of his mp3 collection.
You're missing the difference between getting caught and getting away with something. Just because Teacher X isn't getting sued over their action doesn't mean it's legal.
I'm sure if there was a way for a photocopier to recognize that an article/book/whatever is being made in a manner not within the legal aspects of fair use that there would be lawsuits pending.
Just as with copying... The RIAA had little to no cases against people making copies of cassettes, CDs or whatever in the 80s aside from outright pirates. Why's that? Because there was no easy way to tell that you made 17 copies of a Flock of Seagulls album and passed it out. It's a practice that is generally winked at because finding and prosecuting the guilty is like finding needles in a haystack. Today it's different. You don't need a legion of investigators or guys in trench coats taking pictures of bootleg vendors on the street. I could identify (by IP only mind you) hundreds of copyright violators from my PC with next to no effort.
Libraries lend materials, files on the internet are copied.
Granted, plenty of people copy works from the libraries outside of fair use standards but that's not the intended use by the library.
This is probably the same reason the Zune "Squirt" (is that the right term for it?) thing is kinda winked on, it's not a permanent copy but rather a lending of materials.
Most of what comes to slashdot is flame wars.
Take some time out to look at general scientific postings on here that don't scream politics or religion and you will find either humor or boredom.
And if you think this is bad just wait until someone posts about Uranus. It's just a whole barrel of laughs. (*cough*)(*cough*)
ever since those bees got their FiOS connections they just don't go out like they use to.
Or maybe they got a WII or PS3 for Christmas.
On average people are replacing their phones every 18 months. Moreover the market for unlocked phones is huge so people who have to spend MSRP is already there.
I'm extremely skeptical of this. Unless you can quote some figures from a reliable source I kinda have to shrug this off. I know tons of people and some people who are willing to pay out the ass on gadgets but I don't know a single person who has ever bought a phone off-contract aside from phone failure.
Smartphones are in the $400-$600 range now.
Yeah, for a phone I can install my own apps on and get from various carriers. I don't think the apps problems is that big of an issue but it will change the minds of some. As for carriers? Most people don't complain about their phones as much as their carriers. I'd think loyalty works the same way. I know I won't leave my carrier for this phone from what I know of it.
When phone/PDA combos first came out they were $1000.
I bought my first StarTAC for a few hundred dollars, today they can't give them away in cracker jack boxes. What's your point?
Seems to me that Apple is smart to go after the MS Windows-for-phones segment of the market.
In what way? Just another instance of high priced proprietary hardware to go with a closed source software. Just like in the PC market. And the design certainly won't last. Unless the iPhone is going to have a really slick UI I just don't see the appeal. Even then, how many people buy phones for a UI?
I've never seen an "innovation" in the cell market that hasn't been copied within 3 months. Considering how far ahead of release Apple started touting these things you might see a similar concept from a large cell manufacturer before the iPhone is even available.