The better question is where did they use playboy's trademark? Someone types "playboy" into a search engine. Yes, I realize that this is playboy's trademark. However, the information (ads, whatever) that I return does NOT have playboy's trademark, or use it in any way.
Effectively what playboy wants is a stiflimg of speech, in the sense that whenever a visitor to my site inputs "playboy," I can't return...anything related to adult material at all. Effectively, I can't even *acknowledge* this work in a way that admits it is a trademark.
Whenever crap like this pops up regarding the internet, which inevitably confuses people, I always make "real" world analogies. Here's one:
I have a newsstand. Someone comes up and says, hey, can I buy a playboy? I tell him the girl on the cover this month is ugly, and say, "Hey, want this month's Hustler instead? It's great!" Under playboy's interpretation, that's a violation of their trademark, because I "used" knowledge related to their trademark to promote another product.
I must have missed the part of copyright law where they have not only exclusive use of their term, but all *knowledge* related to the term.
"Some consumers, initially seeking Playboy's sites, may initially believe that unlabeled banner advertisements are links to Playboy's sites...Once they follow the instructions to 'click here,' and they access the site, they may well realize that they are not at a Playboy-sponsored site."
So? Had google (or whoever) had a link that said "Playboy" that linked to someone else, that would be valid logic. But that's not the case. They simply use the knowledge that their customer is searching for playboy, and decice to market something else toward him.
This is a basic right. Simply being in the information business does not obligate a search engine to serve the information playboy wants them too, particularly if the playboy term or logo isn't used on the page (or if references to it actually take you to playboy). Otherwise...what? All search hits for "playboy" have to take you to playboy.com? I think not.
But at the expense of using the money for something that will more directly affect mankind?
First, look at all the crap (in addition to Tang) that was developed as a direct result of the space program and the incredible challenges that have been overcome in the process, including computers, etc. Technology spending returns well on investment. Spending on technology research advances mankind.
That said, what is an example of something that will more directly affect mankind? I presume not bandaid solutions for problems? Because the return on investment there is 0.
Admittedly, I'd at least turn the American public school system into something functional before going back to the moon, which we already did 35 freaking years ago.
But outside of that, I see space exploration as being a problem so difficult that it acts as a spur to develop innovative, useful solutions. It also is a goal with so many inherent problems that it requires a diversity of engineering solutions - unlike a particle accelerator, which while expensive, doesn't require innovative engineering to accomplish, and only advances one kind of basic science. Not to say that's not cool, but I think space exploration ends up being more useful to all of us.
I think we can agree that "modularize," while it's not in the dic, probably means to divide something into meaningful component parts. That said, it now becomes opposite in meaning to "integrate."
Basically, what she's saying is that we're going to take solutions that work today, break them apart so the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing, make you realize how bad this sucks, put it back together like it was, and charge you a bunch for the whole deal.
Nobody cares about that shit, even Jesus has more to do with the Goatse.cx web site which suddenly got unresolved for the sake of some politically correct ASSHAT !
You know, that could never happen in America. Tsk, tsk.;)
To prove this, they only need to show their code in their source in their product and show where it is identical within Linux's code. How is it necessary that IBM show completely unrelated code from AIX?
Chewbacca is a Wookie who uses AIX on a network administered by Ewoks. What does this have to do with SCO? Nothing. It makes no sense. Just like this case. So if Chewbacca uses AIX on Endor with the Ewoks, you must, uh, hold IBM liable. Or something. Does that answer your question?
This is actually much worse. First off, credit card companies usually forbid accepting cards without a signature (though many ignore this rule), and it is much easier to fake an ID than fake a signature. I'll just print an ID with my picture and your name.
And if every store were employing handwriting analysis experts, who had hours to study these signatures, that might be true. As it is, stores hire high-schoolers (and too few at that), so they don't have time.
It's much easier to fake a signature well enough to get it past a sales clerk than to fake an ID to pass same.
It's still vastly inferior to the experience of Mac OS 9
I'm not going to say you're incorrect, but you're not exactly correct either, as that was a completely subjective statement. That said, I'd love to see some stats on people who like the new OS more/less compared to the old one, broken down into old Mac fans and those who came on the scene after the advent of OS X.
Personally, I love OS X and find it extremely usable. Additionally, I avoided previous iterations of Mac OS like a plague, and would have rather used an abacus than a mac back then. Bascially, the lack of a good foundation (compared to the BSD-based guts it has now) and a terminal was a killer.
That said, I guarantee that Apple will sell out its core fans to get new markets (ie, people like me). As you say, what else are you going to use? Windows?
(If there's one thing I can't stand more than anything else, it's the whole "like it or leave it" attitude. NOTHING would ever get improved if all people were like that.)
I do agree with your sentiment there. People usually do that when they can think of nothing intelligent to say. It's most commonly found among nationalistic morons (ie, America: love it or leave it!). As if criticizing features of one's government (or favorite OS) somehow means one should abandon it.
My one greatest compliment to OS X is that it has come so far (mind-blowing, really) in so little time. It's ceased being a toy OS for artsy people (so was the stereotype) and has become incredibly powerful. And I'll admit, there are some UI issues. I guess I'd say to give it time
Right, but again, *I'm* not responsible if they don't, my credit card covers me completely. If Speedpass guarantees against theft, it's a different story, I thought they didn't.
And believe it or not, more places check than you'd think.
Sign the back. I don't see anywhere to sign the back of my watch.
what if someone steals my wallet?
So I don't carry cash. But I'll be damned if I'll go from a more secure to less secure method of transaction. I also imagine there's no credit protection for this speedpass system, as there is for all credit cards. No go.
It wouldn't be fair for Adobe to have to show any damages before they can claim copious ammounts of money.
It's not fair for Adobe to have to show any damages at all. That's the defendant's job, telling the plaintiff what their allegations should be during discovery. At least SCO seems to think so.
The announcement also did NOT say Kodak was going to slow down or stop the production of film in any way. I suspect that corner of their business will continue to thrive in the US and Europe for quite some time yet.
I presume Kodak makes as much film as they sell, and I guarantee that film sales have fallen. As such, I'm sure their production has been gradually slowing for a few years now.
SCO must be the only company in the world who intentionally likened themselves to the RIAA. Great job there guys. Whaddya gonna do next, SCO, sue an 11-year-old girl for contributing headers to the kernel?
It's also peculiarly British. Think about it: Arthur Dent's home is destroyed (twice) by bureaucrats. (Here it would have to be corporations.) They spend time looking for a cup of tea. The end of the universe comes, *and it's no big deal*: people go to a restaurant to watch it happen.
Right, but all these lovely stereotypes are why we Americans love to poke fun at the British. Also, remember that the Hitchhiker series as as beloved by geeks on the left side of the pond as the right.
I'm also disappointed that they're probably going to make Trillian into a bimbo again; she was supposed to be an astrophysicist. Nobody seems to like nerd women, except for Slashdot, Harvey Pekar, and Howard Dean;)
It would be a disappointment if she were *just* a bimbo...but she *is* a bimbo.
And I wonder how well the nerd community is going to rally around it: THHGTTG has been out for a while, and some younger nerds have never heard of it.
Who? Let me go kick their asses. I think the standards will be high, meaning it will either be reviled or loved by the geek community.
Historically, perhaps. But I'm thinking that IBM is gunning for that particular honor today.
Certainly. I suppose I'd already ceased considering IBM a "computer manufacturer" since that is, now, becoming a relatively small part of what they do.
I think their core business revolves around some little orphan kid with super powers. At least that's what TV tells me.
What everyone seems to forget is that many or most games will not run on 2K or XP. I have tried, even with XP's 98 compatability mode, and for these programs you really are stuck with 98/SE. While this is no issue for businesses it is a major hassle for home users.
Well, all the newer ones have to be runnable under XP, which should translate to 2K as well. I will admit, I switched my home box to 2K and switched it back to 98 when I found a couple of games that wouldn't install, but they were both a few years old.
This should be a dead issue in a few years, right in time for Longhorn to screw everything up again.
I am no English expert, but it sure sounds like they are tryin to say that WMA should be the only game in town, and are at the same time trying to play it off that they 'want' competition.
For what it's worth, it's always seemed to me that Dell was the most MS-cozy of the major computer manufacturers, HP least so. So I'm not surprised that Dell has come out in support of MS on this.
It's not a bad strategy, really, hitching your businesses fortunes to the MS monopoly. Unless you care about enterprise business. Where all the margin is. Awww, shit.;)
If Dell really cared about standards, that standard would of course be MP3. But a little birdie tells me you're right, they'll support WMA over that nasty insecure MP3 format.
I also am running W2K on a PII-366 laptop with 320MB RAM (PCG-Z505SX). After it takes 10 minutes to boot I can do things with it. Real usable. So I am giving you that.
Don't know what you screwed up on the install, or maybe it's that you need to re-install. My laptop is a Toshiba, a PII-266 with a mere 64 MB of RAM. It takes a few minutes to load, and I don't run 15 things at once, but it handles Office 2K just fine. Win2K isn't all that bad on older machines if you install it clean and don't junk it up. I don't know what's wrong with your box. That said, no one should be using machines of the vintage we have for business. Such machines can be replaced with better ones, used, for pennies.
My guess is that you don't use many old apps. I found a couple that don't run on W2K 10 minutes after installing it for the first time. So my newest machine (AMD XP2500+) is running Win98/Mandrake 9.2 dual boot. I have 3.5 machines running Windows (W98, WME, W2K*2), and 4.5 running Linux (Mdk).
You can always find some that apps that were made for 98 and don't run under Win98, but most do. Additionally, I believe XP has a "98 Compatible" mode that runs most executables OK. However, my original point was this: cessation of win98 support will not drive people to linux because of app breaking, as migrating to linux from windows will break 100% of your apps, as opposed to (rough, rough guess) 10% of your apps as occurs with Win98-->Win2K.
Thus, I still predict that MS dropping Win98 support will not send people to Linux, even had it occurred this year.
However, without Win98, what is there? WinXP? YEah, and throw away every *old* application you have as well as the PC you were using and buy a new one just to get XP. That'll happen...sure.
That or 2K. Most 98 applications work on 2K, even XP. I'm guessing you don't use Windows too much, because most apps don't break. And most machines that will run 98 (except the absolutely oldest ones that sucked even when they were new) will run 2K fine. I run 2K on a PII 233 laptop, so don't give me that.
As far as breaking apps, I guarantee that the best way to break Win98 apps is to start using Linux. Surprisingly, Win98 and Win2K are more compatible with each other than either is with Linux.
We're pretty damn sure that Linux is clean. You can be sure too, because if you get sued we'll pay the legal costs for the time being, but since we know that you (we, Linux) will win in the end, SCO will have to pay and so it won't cost us a dime.
For what it's worth, if SCO sues and loses, their stock price immediately hits the shitter, and there will be nothing to recover for IBM/Intel. So whatever money they use for defense is lost...if there is any.
That said, it's money well spent because they could easily lose that much money in sales from timid IT managers/legal departments. So it's worth their $10M purely as an advertisement.
That said, I don't believe SCO will ever end up in court against IBM anyway, because they get more money from keeping their stock price up as long as possible. I see Canopy looting SCO right before an actual court date (probably one with Red Hat they can't avoid) in case they lose. If they accidentally win, well, that's a nice unexpected bonus for them.
And so our Linux bussiness can roll on. It's more than PR. It's saying we'll win.
It's certainly putting their money where their mouth is. But I think all they did is call SCO's bluff. The only other thing they accomplished is blocking the possibility that SCO could have gone after small companies, hoping to establish a precedent before they go after the big (blue) fish. By IBM telling SCO they won't get an easy victory against a chump defendant, I think they keep SCO out of court as a plaintiff altogether.
Well I think MS realizes that if they start a push towards upgrades there is the possibility that the fees involved might push the coporates to free alternatives... Maybe by pushing for upgrades only with Office and backend items they can leave 98 on the desktops and save themselves from companies going with a mass conversion to Linux?
The first proof that what you describe likely won't happen is that it *didn't* when MS axed Win95.
Second, While Bill has nightmares of Linux on servers, it's barely on his radar as a desktop option for your typical "productivity suite" user. Any corporations you mention who actually care about the cessation of '98 support would probably have found some copies of Win2k, which they should have done long ago anyway, win98 sucks so badly.
Bottom line is, I use linux too, but I don't harbor illusions of any exodus to linux when the masses "see the light" after support ends for a particular windows product.
And anyway, I dare say that anyone still crazy/incompetent to run a business on a win98 box isn't exactly patching it all that much. As such, I imagine the number of people this proposed obselescence will impact is few.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, but there was the step in between "modularization" and "integration" where they threw 90% of him away as well.
The better question is where did they use playboy's trademark? Someone types "playboy" into a search engine. Yes, I realize that this is playboy's trademark. However, the information (ads, whatever) that I return does NOT have playboy's trademark, or use it in any way.
Effectively what playboy wants is a stiflimg of speech, in the sense that whenever a visitor to my site inputs "playboy," I can't return...anything related to adult material at all. Effectively, I can't even *acknowledge* this work in a way that admits it is a trademark.
Whenever crap like this pops up regarding the internet, which inevitably confuses people, I always make "real" world analogies. Here's one:
I have a newsstand. Someone comes up and says, hey, can I buy a playboy? I tell him the girl on the cover this month is ugly, and say, "Hey, want this month's Hustler instead? It's great!" Under playboy's interpretation, that's a violation of their trademark, because I "used" knowledge related to their trademark to promote another product.
I must have missed the part of copyright law where they have not only exclusive use of their term, but all *knowledge* related to the term.
"Some consumers, initially seeking Playboy's sites, may initially believe that unlabeled banner advertisements are links to Playboy's sites...Once they follow the instructions to 'click here,' and they access the site, they may well realize that they are not at a Playboy-sponsored site."
So? Had google (or whoever) had a link that said "Playboy" that linked to someone else, that would be valid logic. But that's not the case. They simply use the knowledge that their customer is searching for playboy, and decice to market something else toward him.
This is a basic right. Simply being in the information business does not obligate a search engine to serve the information playboy wants them too, particularly if the playboy term or logo isn't used on the page (or if references to it actually take you to playboy). Otherwise...what? All search hits for "playboy" have to take you to playboy.com? I think not.
First, look at all the crap (in addition to Tang) that was developed as a direct result of the space program and the incredible challenges that have been overcome in the process, including computers, etc. Technology spending returns well on investment. Spending on technology research advances mankind.
That said, what is an example of something that will more directly affect mankind? I presume not bandaid solutions for problems? Because the return on investment there is 0.
Admittedly, I'd at least turn the American public school system into something functional before going back to the moon, which we already did 35 freaking years ago.
But outside of that, I see space exploration as being a problem so difficult that it acts as a spur to develop innovative, useful solutions. It also is a goal with so many inherent problems that it requires a diversity of engineering solutions - unlike a particle accelerator, which while expensive, doesn't require innovative engineering to accomplish, and only advances one kind of basic science. Not to say that's not cool, but I think space exploration ends up being more useful to all of us.
Basically, what she's saying is that we're going to take solutions that work today, break them apart so the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing, make you realize how bad this sucks, put it back together like it was, and charge you a bunch for the whole deal.
Oh, and it will involve carbon in some way.
You know, that could never happen in America. Tsk, tsk. ;)
Chewbacca is a Wookie who uses AIX on a network administered by Ewoks. What does this have to do with SCO? Nothing. It makes no sense. Just like this case. So if Chewbacca uses AIX on Endor with the Ewoks, you must, uh, hold IBM liable. Or something. Does that answer your question?
These are the important questions of our age, people.
And if every store were employing handwriting analysis experts, who had hours to study these signatures, that might be true. As it is, stores hire high-schoolers (and too few at that), so they don't have time.
It's much easier to fake a signature well enough to get it past a sales clerk than to fake an ID to pass same.
I'm not going to say you're incorrect, but you're not exactly correct either, as that was a completely subjective statement. That said, I'd love to see some stats on people who like the new OS more/less compared to the old one, broken down into old Mac fans and those who came on the scene after the advent of OS X.
Personally, I love OS X and find it extremely usable. Additionally, I avoided previous iterations of Mac OS like a plague, and would have rather used an abacus than a mac back then. Bascially, the lack of a good foundation (compared to the BSD-based guts it has now) and a terminal was a killer.
That said, I guarantee that Apple will sell out its core fans to get new markets (ie, people like me). As you say, what else are you going to use? Windows?
(If there's one thing I can't stand more than anything else, it's the whole "like it or leave it" attitude. NOTHING would ever get improved if all people were like that.)
I do agree with your sentiment there. People usually do that when they can think of nothing intelligent to say. It's most commonly found among nationalistic morons (ie, America: love it or leave it!). As if criticizing features of one's government (or favorite OS) somehow means one should abandon it.
My one greatest compliment to OS X is that it has come so far (mind-blowing, really) in so little time. It's ceased being a toy OS for artsy people (so was the stereotype) and has become incredibly powerful. And I'll admit, there are some UI issues. I guess I'd say to give it time
Right, but again, *I'm* not responsible if they don't, my credit card covers me completely. If Speedpass guarantees against theft, it's a different story, I thought they didn't.
And believe it or not, more places check than you'd think.
Sign the back. I don't see anywhere to sign the back of my watch.
what if someone steals my wallet?
So I don't carry cash. But I'll be damned if I'll go from a more secure to less secure method of transaction. I also imagine there's no credit protection for this speedpass system, as there is for all credit cards. No go.
Well, there's only one logical solution. Implanted microchip in the index finger.
And if you bitch about your "privacy," the terrorists win. Remember that.
It's not fair for Adobe to have to show any damages at all. That's the defendant's job, telling the plaintiff what their allegations should be during discovery. At least SCO seems to think so.
I presume Kodak makes as much film as they sell, and I guarantee that film sales have fallen. As such, I'm sure their production has been gradually slowing for a few years now.
SCO must be the only company in the world who intentionally likened themselves to the RIAA. Great job there guys. Whaddya gonna do next, SCO, sue an 11-year-old girl for contributing headers to the kernel?
Right, but all these lovely stereotypes are why we Americans love to poke fun at the British. Also, remember that the Hitchhiker series as as beloved by geeks on the left side of the pond as the right.
I'm also disappointed that they're probably going to make Trillian into a bimbo again; she was supposed to be an astrophysicist. Nobody seems to like nerd women, except for Slashdot, Harvey Pekar, and Howard Dean ;)
It would be a disappointment if she were *just* a bimbo...but she *is* a bimbo.
And I wonder how well the nerd community is going to rally around it: THHGTTG has been out for a while, and some younger nerds have never heard of it.
Who? Let me go kick their asses. I think the standards will be high, meaning it will either be reviled or loved by the geek community.
Certainly. I suppose I'd already ceased considering IBM a "computer manufacturer" since that is, now, becoming a relatively small part of what they do.
I think their core business revolves around some little orphan kid with super powers. At least that's what TV tells me.
Try, but often fail. The only profit-making MS divisions are Windows and Office.
Additionally, business services are almost universally higher-margin than home.
Well, all the newer ones have to be runnable under XP, which should translate to 2K as well. I will admit, I switched my home box to 2K and switched it back to 98 when I found a couple of games that wouldn't install, but they were both a few years old.
This should be a dead issue in a few years, right in time for Longhorn to screw everything up again.
For what it's worth, it's always seemed to me that Dell was the most MS-cozy of the major computer manufacturers, HP least so. So I'm not surprised that Dell has come out in support of MS on this.
It's not a bad strategy, really, hitching your businesses fortunes to the MS monopoly. Unless you care about enterprise business. Where all the margin is. Awww, shit. ;)
If Dell really cared about standards, that standard would of course be MP3. But a little birdie tells me you're right, they'll support WMA over that nasty insecure MP3 format.
Don't know what you screwed up on the install, or maybe it's that you need to re-install. My laptop is a Toshiba, a PII-266 with a mere 64 MB of RAM. It takes a few minutes to load, and I don't run 15 things at once, but it handles Office 2K just fine. Win2K isn't all that bad on older machines if you install it clean and don't junk it up. I don't know what's wrong with your box. That said, no one should be using machines of the vintage we have for business. Such machines can be replaced with better ones, used, for pennies.
My guess is that you don't use many old apps. I found a couple that don't run on W2K 10 minutes after installing it for the first time. So my newest machine (AMD XP2500+) is running Win98/Mandrake 9.2 dual boot. I have 3.5 machines running Windows (W98, WME, W2K*2), and 4.5 running Linux (Mdk).
You can always find some that apps that were made for 98 and don't run under Win98, but most do. Additionally, I believe XP has a "98 Compatible" mode that runs most executables OK. However, my original point was this: cessation of win98 support will not drive people to linux because of app breaking, as migrating to linux from windows will break 100% of your apps, as opposed to (rough, rough guess) 10% of your apps as occurs with Win98-->Win2K.
Thus, I still predict that MS dropping Win98 support will not send people to Linux, even had it occurred this year.
...MS Bob. Wonder if they can hire Melinda Gates as a consultant?
That or 2K. Most 98 applications work on 2K, even XP. I'm guessing you don't use Windows too much, because most apps don't break. And most machines that will run 98 (except the absolutely oldest ones that sucked even when they were new) will run 2K fine. I run 2K on a PII 233 laptop, so don't give me that.
As far as breaking apps, I guarantee that the best way to break Win98 apps is to start using Linux. Surprisingly, Win98 and Win2K are more compatible with each other than either is with Linux.
For what it's worth, if SCO sues and loses, their stock price immediately hits the shitter, and there will be nothing to recover for IBM/Intel. So whatever money they use for defense is lost...if there is any.
That said, it's money well spent because they could easily lose that much money in sales from timid IT managers/legal departments. So it's worth their $10M purely as an advertisement.
That said, I don't believe SCO will ever end up in court against IBM anyway, because they get more money from keeping their stock price up as long as possible. I see Canopy looting SCO right before an actual court date (probably one with Red Hat they can't avoid) in case they lose. If they accidentally win, well, that's a nice unexpected bonus for them.
And so our Linux bussiness can roll on. It's more than PR. It's saying we'll win.
It's certainly putting their money where their mouth is. But I think all they did is call SCO's bluff. The only other thing they accomplished is blocking the possibility that SCO could have gone after small companies, hoping to establish a precedent before they go after the big (blue) fish. By IBM telling SCO they won't get an easy victory against a chump defendant, I think they keep SCO out of court as a plaintiff altogether.
All in all, good move.
The first proof that what you describe likely won't happen is that it *didn't* when MS axed Win95.
Second, While Bill has nightmares of Linux on servers, it's barely on his radar as a desktop option for your typical "productivity suite" user. Any corporations you mention who actually care about the cessation of '98 support would probably have found some copies of Win2k, which they should have done long ago anyway, win98 sucks so badly.
Bottom line is, I use linux too, but I don't harbor illusions of any exodus to linux when the masses "see the light" after support ends for a particular windows product.
And anyway, I dare say that anyone still crazy/incompetent to run a business on a win98 box isn't exactly patching it all that much. As such, I imagine the number of people this proposed obselescence will impact is few.