They didn't bother because they had no idea it might be important. MS or their execs have no ability to figure anything out ahead of time. All they can do is notice what other people are having success with and copy or purchase it. They've shown this time after time for years and years. So far it's been a pretty successful strategy when coupled with their desktop monopoly and enormous cash reserves, so I'd guess we will see it continue for quite some time.
(People being too dumb/lazy to check, though, is the hard problem. Fortunately this is evolution at work.)
If by evolution you mean survival of the fittest, that works only if being susceptible to this attack makes it harder to reproduce. I can't see how that would be the case.
The hypothetical situation raised is someone on the "no bet" list successfully getting in and gambling and leaving, so whether he can get in is already assumed. The situation also states that he wins money, since we already know what happens when he loses. Both points are right on though, and put the two of them together and it wouldn't surprise me if this hypothetical situation has never actually happened.
I'd like to see some major PC maker offer a Linux line of Destop and Laptop PC's, a hardware/software package similar in concept to Apple's offerings and with the same effort being put into support, development, making the OS easy and consistent to use and that users can easily get ahold of applications to replace the ones they miss from Windows. The components for this already exists, somebody just needs to get off his/her ass and use them to shake up the computer world like Ryanair and the likes managed to shake up the airline business.
What's the profit motive for doing so? Would Linux be cheaper for the vendor to support? That seems unlikely since you would have a bunch of people using an unfamiliar OS calling tech support to ask how to do the most mundane tasks. With Windows at least the majority of users know how to start a program. And I haven't heard anybody say that Linux produces fewer problems than Windows in the area of 3rd-party software and hardware support, and plenty of people saying the opposite. The PC vendor would, if they didn't contract support to a Linux vendor, save money by using a free distro rather than paying Windows licensing costs. So there's the cost side, what about revenue? Would customers be willing to pay more for a Linux computer? I would think the reverse, if anything, so unless I'm mistaken there's no markup to be had there. Add in the inherent risk of any new business venture, and I just don't see much reason for any established PC maker to do this. It's possible a new company will start up and offer ready-made Linux PCs, but that just wouldn't have the same impact as the major PC maker you're asking for.
Wouldn't that be either "cannot justify the expense" or "too lazy"? After all, if you have the money and don't mind moving your files, you can just drop $500 on a brand-new machine with a brand-new OS. Assuming there is software you want to run that your hardware doesn't support (XP in this hypothetical scenario) what reason is there not to upgrade hardware other than 1) not enough money 2) too lazy or 3) fear/ignorance? Number 3 I think could be added to the original list of why people don't upgrade from W98: people who don't mind spending money on a computer, and aren't lazy about it, but know so little about computers that they're afraid to do anything different than what they're doing now.
Mine does (Dish network). It skips forward 30 seconds (or back 10). I hit it a few times and if I overrun I hit back a few times, and the commercial break ends up lasting about 5 seconds. You get at least a frame from every commercial, so if I see something that looks interesting I go back and check it out.
Assuming this is actually the choice they faced, do you think the UK government would be more interested in standing up for the rights of one citizen accused of a crime, or maintaining good relations with the US? I'd be very surprised if it were the former. Now maybe whoever made this decision doesn't see it in the light that I presented it, I don't know.
Lots of "speech" is banned if you can't prove that it has artistic merit (some forms of pornography, for example).
You're saying pornography is by default banned in the US unless it can be proven to have artistic merit? That smells like something that fell out of the back end of a male bovine. I doubt you can back up that position.
As long as the SS would only show up at my house to investigate a bit, then it would still be freedom of speech. If I would get punished for the letter, then it really isn't freedom of speech.
Being hassled by law enforcement IS punishment, and makes the speech NOT free in my book. "You can say anything you want and we won't do anything except show up at your door with guns to ask you questions about it." Not free speech. Now I'm saying that making threats is in fact not protected speech. That's a factual position and I'll see if I can find something to back it up.
what's wrong with the store wanting to throw them out?
Nothing, but they didn't do that. The managers could have gone to each person, inquired whether they planned to buy anything, and if not instruct them to leave the store. But instead they called the police, who threatened to "arrest" them and put them "in jail". For what, I have no idea.
No, supply and demand is charging more because the market values it more. What you're describing is a kind of price discrimination, and is potentially (not always) illegal in the US.
These would normally be copyrighted works with all the traditional horror for people that want to share the works. Instead they are licensed under the creative commons license
If they're not copyrighted, why is a license necessary? Just wondering...
No, he's using British grammar. In the UK, a company/organization is not singular but plural. "BPI sue" is exactly how they would say it, even though it sounds completely wrong to US ears (or looks wrong to their eyes).
No, it doesn't. Feel free to send a threatening letter to the President though, and explain your 1st Amendment rights to the Secret Service when they show up at your house.
Rip off music and video files on p2p networks while starving future artists, as the rest of us legal paying citizens wonder where all the good modern music has gone.
You actually think that the RIAA labels A) pay their artists well and B) produce all the good music?
I'm going to get around this problem by never letting microsoft.com near my machine
What if they decide that WGA's default position is that you're a pirate, and XP will be disabled unless and until it can phone home? I seriously would not put it past them.
I can understand that I used a general term - software - without qualifying it, but I honestly thought that the context of the discussion was qualification enough. Surely you don't really need me to specifically list everything that I am not referring to in every single case?
Would it really have been that difficult to say "business software" or "productivity software" the first time you mentioned it? After that there would have been a clearly stated context for your comments, rather than vague assumptions about what everybody else already knows you mean even though you never said it. Secondly, games are not the only type of software I'm talking about. How about a music player? Image editor for the photos I take? Filesystem manager that doesn't suck donkey balls like Windows Exploder? I could go on. Are these not fundamentally similar to other kinds of software you're talking about, yet not used for gain as you defined it (at least as I understand your definition)? Or maybe your definition means any software that's actually useful, I don't know. Perhaps you could clarify.
But, in case you do, when I use the term "pirated" here, I mean copied and procured illegally, in violation of the copyright law of many nations. I do not mean obtained by a man in a silk shirt and crimson pants, wearing an eyepatch, wielding a saber (or epee or rapier or cudgel) with/without a parrot or other exotic animal, who may or may not have a peg-leg or hook for a hand, who may have a penchant for saying "Arrrgh!" and "Matey!"
Gosh thanks, I actually thought you used grappling hooks to board cargo ships carrying software shipments.
I'd go on, but really, it's a lot of work spelling out the obvious -.
Then perhaps you should redirect your effort to spelling out the non-obvious. And before you reply, keep in mind that while what you were thinking about but didn't type is definitely obvious to you, the rest of us don't necessarily see it the same way.
Addressing "profit": I include things like making something using pirated software to turn in an assignment at school. So, if I were, say, a graphic design student and used pirated software to complete a project that I turned in - that is, in my opinion, not acceptable. When I talk about "learning to use" the software, I mean exactly that - learning to use the software and producing documents that are solely for my personal use, not for any other purpose.
So it's OK to pirate software that you use just for your own convenience or enjoyment? What if the sole purpose of the software is to increase convenience or enjoyment, and thus that is the target market of the people trying to sell it?
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't bother because they had no idea it might be important. MS or their execs have no ability to figure anything out ahead of time. All they can do is notice what other people are having success with and copy or purchase it. They've shown this time after time for years and years. So far it's been a pretty successful strategy when coupled with their desktop monopoly and enormous cash reserves, so I'd guess we will see it continue for quite some time.
The hypothetical situation raised is someone on the "no bet" list successfully getting in and gambling and leaving, so whether he can get in is already assumed. The situation also states that he wins money, since we already know what happens when he loses. Both points are right on though, and put the two of them together and it wouldn't surprise me if this hypothetical situation has never actually happened.
Then again, I'm just speculating.
Wouldn't that be either "cannot justify the expense" or "too lazy"? After all, if you have the money and don't mind moving your files, you can just drop $500 on a brand-new machine with a brand-new OS. Assuming there is software you want to run that your hardware doesn't support (XP in this hypothetical scenario) what reason is there not to upgrade hardware other than 1) not enough money 2) too lazy or 3) fear/ignorance? Number 3 I think could be added to the original list of why people don't upgrade from W98: people who don't mind spending money on a computer, and aren't lazy about it, but know so little about computers that they're afraid to do anything different than what they're doing now.
How do you make cash money "null and void"? This presumes that the person can get in, gamble, cash out and leave without getting caught.
Mine does (Dish network). It skips forward 30 seconds (or back 10). I hit it a few times and if I overrun I hit back a few times, and the commercial break ends up lasting about 5 seconds. You get at least a frame from every commercial, so if I see something that looks interesting I go back and check it out.
Assuming this is actually the choice they faced, do you think the UK government would be more interested in standing up for the rights of one citizen accused of a crime, or maintaining good relations with the US? I'd be very surprised if it were the former. Now maybe whoever made this decision doesn't see it in the light that I presented it, I don't know.
No, supply and demand is charging more because the market values it more. What you're describing is a kind of price discrimination, and is potentially (not always) illegal in the US.
No, he's using British grammar. In the UK, a company/organization is not singular but plural. "BPI sue" is exactly how they would say it, even though it sounds completely wrong to US ears (or looks wrong to their eyes).
I believe that's F, not C, as in "Fahrenheit 451." Still a very hot battery.
Shouldn't it be "loosing ground"?
Interesting, thanks for the reply.
Maybe you could actually read my entire comment before replying. Naked infants OK. Naked older children not.