Remember, @Home is owned by AT&T, those fun people who were talking about charging online merchants a fraction of any sale to a AT&T Broadband customer, and even for just "delivering" those customers to the merchant in the first place.
Actually, IIRC they were talking about charging online merchants in this manner for sales made when the merchants were hosted on AT&T's actual broadband network (i.e. their lines, their hosting setup, @Home's main customer website etc....).
I believe that AT&T/@Home has a vritual monopoly in the US on the cable modem lines. (My cable modem is certinaly AT&T/@Home, and it makes me think I should be posting this anonymously... oh well.) If it weren't for DSL, it would be a virtual broadband monopoly. Is there a lesson in here somewhere? A lesson that's been learned over and over again in history?
In Chicago alone we've got a couple of decent cable competitors, one of which is owned by Microsoft. Let's not go over the top on this one yet.
If we had other cable companies to get our cable modem service from, we wouldn't have to endlessly bitch about @Home.
But you'd still want, to, wouldn't you? Be fair.
From the other end, @Home would have to clean up their act to keep their customers.
To be honest, they were very good to me when I was a customer. And I left them for reasons not involving them in any way.
I know I've swicthed phone-in ISPs several times, and have found one which has service and capabilities that really match what I want. If we can't vote with our feet, but can only bitch against people who have weird "intellectual property" laws to stifle that bitching, we're hosed.
Even if I believed everything I've heard about @Home & AT&T, they'd still not be as bad as Ameritech or British Telecom. There are a lot of crap companies out there. AT&T isn't the only bugbear.
He posted "private" internal documents to a public forum. That's wrong. Just like I'd rather not have my credit card statement published in the Chicago Tribune.
Sheesh!
While the documents may show crappy business practices by @Home let's not castigate them for wanting to keep private documents private. Do you want them to make their root passwords public as well?
I had @Home for a while, and thought the service was just fine. I have DSL now, but the switch was due to cabling issues in my apartment, not the @Home service.
However, I had a WebRamp 700s as a firewall and for a period of about 4 weeks recorded at least 1 serious attack a day (Syn Flood, DoS, Ping Flood, etc....).
Perhaps they should do what our ASP just did - configure their firewall to deny packets on all ports except 21. Made accessing the Applications on port 80, never mind what else happens on port 80 (yes I know what that is), a bit difficult, though.....
I think way too many people have this attitude. It's simply not acceptible. Consumer or not, the stuff should work. If it's not targeted to professionals, great - don't put in the kinds of features that consumers don't need. Just because it's consumer-oriented doesn't mean it doesn't have to work as well as it claims to.
I agree totally, and that's why I said to the original author that he was right to rant. My comments were aimed at what one should really do concerning Apple products. Basically, despite Apple's press, don't use the IMac and the IBook for heavy work.
Hello? McFly? Mac models since the G3s have had video cards in them. My PowerMac G4 has an AGP 2X card doing its video. I think even iMacs have replaceable video cards inside, though I could be wrong. Can anyone else confirm that?
Yes, they also have replaceable video cards. But, speaking from experience (I'm an AppleCare Certified Technician), I'd just like to say: "Replaceable yes, easy, no."
If only I could play Diablo II on my iMac... Unfortunately, my revision A iMac suffers from the infamous "Green Light Of Death" syndrome (GLOD). Moderators, yes, this is an off-topic rant, but I'm trying to help and warn others.
I don't want to take away from what you're saying, because it is only right and proper to get steamed up about stupid design flaws in Macs. I've used Macs a lot and get called by "friends" quite often to, most often, help them with problems with their Performas, mostly made during that period from 1995-1998 when Apple really made shit computers.
Having said that, it's important to remember that the IMac and IBook are meant as consumer machines. While one might argue that you or I is a consumer, if you take a longer look at Apple's strategy, we're not the consumer being targeted.
The consumer being targeted is the basic computer user, who needs Office, Quicken, email, and web. Games are limited to chess, solitaire, and maybe Civilization, but we're not talking a lot of high-end here. Maybe with IMovie, we're talking some more high-end resolution stuff, but that's why they came out with the DV.
Before I was hired at my current job as the Mac specialist, someone convinced IT that they should buy some IBooks with Airport Cards so they could roam the building and be able to get into and all over our NT-Network. Fine, you might think, but basically the IBook definitely, and the MacOS generally, just wasn't up for it, for a variety of reasons I won't go into now. This is because the IBook is a consumer machine, not meant for high-end or business use.
So, in conclusion, it sucks that your IMac doesn't work this way for you and yes, it's due to some crappy design flaws. However, the IMac is made for your average faux-bohemian in a loft who cares more about coffee shops than computers or your average suburban mom/dad who feel the same way. If you want performance, flexibility, and, heck, a better computer, get a G4 (if you want to stay with Mac, that is). Just my opinion.
how in the world can you get to know what lifestyle an certain IP or host has got, and what belief?
Lifestyle of 209.165.23.3: Preliminary Report
Primary Activities: Appears to read a lot, and has a wide breadth of favorite material, from erotic stories to cheese-making in Switzerland.
Common Actions: A fair amount of handshaking, sends and receives a lot of packets, and occasionally stops everything for a moment for a breather.
Possible Concerns: Appears to respond to most requests the same way, and although generally accepting, will occasionally deny requests for no clear reason.
Recommended Action:
Further study is recommended, perhaps with an attempt to follow and study some of the close associates of the subject, namely 209.143.25.4 and 208.132.43.31.
Uh...just to let you know that Nextell blows goats... they have the worst coverage and they are known for having the worst customer service... they pretty much suck and they really don't care. I would dump them and go to a real service provider if I were you.
Thanks, but we're well aware of Nextel's failings. For instance, they work fine in the building I'm in, but if I go to the next one over - it doesn't work at all. I also live in downtown Chicago and get pretty much no coverage in my apartment at all.
We have other methods of notification that we use as well as the "texting" functionality on the Nextels.
We have Sitescope send us text messages to our Nextels at work when something bad happens. So you'll get that voicemail ringer out of the blue and it's always a message that says "Sitescope: foo server not responding...".
Now whenever I hear that voicemail ringer, with no previous call, I get a bad feeling.
So wouldn't work for me. Might work for everyone else....
We've been having these exact issues. Which is why we rolled out base stations to IT Operations for "testing" purposes at home and almost immediately ran into the 2.4 gHz cordless phone problem.
Having said that, once you're aware of the potential interference, wireless connectivity can be a real, real benefit. For base stations we're only using one official WaveLAN base station, and for the rest (including the home units) we're actually using Apple's Airport Base Stations, which are working very well.
The key to good performance, we've found, frequency issues aside, is to make sure to configure each base station to accept only certain mac addresses and space these out. This will ensure that if people walk around with their laptops, you won't suddenly have an issue where 30 people have a meeting and they're all using 1 base station. Especially if one of these is giving a streaming video presentation....
So, highly recommended, despite the various interference problems, which we've managed to overcome, to a greater extent. Just plan, plan, plan, as always....
Here in Korea, you can't publish any advertisement which compares products of one company with products of another company directly, whether it's true or not. I don't think it's allowed in the U.S. also.
You can in the United States (it's very common), but it is not allowed in many parts of Europe.
"Microsoft correctly contends that under California law an injunction must be based on the prospect of future conduct.
If that's the case, then given both the evidence in the case so far (and the court's admission that Sun is likely to win the case), and, frankly, substantial and continuing evidence of M$'s dirty tricks, I can't see how the injunction was considered not necessary. Do these judges know anything about common sense?
1) Although it is not proven that Marijuana causes cancer, it has been shown that it contains as much or more of same chemicals contained in cigarettes that have been shown to cause cancer.
The number of food additives and drugs the FDA approve every year which 'have been shown to cause cancer' is staggering. Your point here is not a convincing one when used against marijuana alone.
Overconsumption of alcohol is said to be a major cause of liver failure and heart disease. Let's ban that. Saccharin and aspartame (Nutrasweet) cause cancer in lab rats. Let's ban them.
The fact is, that if you smoke pot, and you smoke just pot, you smoke a lot less than if you smoke cigarettes. And the correlation between smoking pot and getting addicted to cigarettes is not proven. This is probably because joints don't have the lovely chemicals put into cigarettes by the tobacco companies to get you hooked. But let's not ban cigarettes, OK?
2) Marijuana users are far more prone to chest infections, such as pneumonia. Hey, what did Sagan die of? 2+2 = 5, right?
If I remember correctly, Sagan was ill with something more serious before succumbing to pneumonia. Besides, alcohol depresses the immune system, cigarettes cause lung cancer....
3) The THC in marijuana has been shown to affect the immune system. Unlike alcohol, THC can stay in your body for weeks depending on how often you smoke.
Sorry, but the aftereffects of alcohol also stay in your blood for weeks after you drink, depending on how much you drink.
4) It is VERY evident that marijuana affects the neuralogical systems of the body. There are many well documented side effects of the drug. Doctors are still researching the effect of marijuana on the brain.
Every drug, including alcohol and tobacco, affect the neurological and other systems of the body. That's not a convincing argument vs. marijuana alone. Furthermore, scientific testing of marijuana has not yet been extensive enough to indicate how widespread the side effects are.
5) Studies among teenagers have shown that those who smoke marijuana are up to 104 times more likely to try and become addicted to other, more dangerous drugs, than those who have not tried.
No they don't. Holland has found that since legalising marijuana, the average age of their heroin users (heroin is considered the follow-on drug from marijuana) has increased steadily. This is a universally accepted indicator that younger people are not taking up stronger drugs.
6) Less than 1 in 4 high school students have ever used, or ever will use marijuana. I doubt that number is higher with responsible, job holding adults.
Sounds like a serious issue, then.
7) Marijuana is addictive. While not everyone who uses becomes an addict, there are many who seek it out compulsively. In 1995 165,000 people entered drug treatment programs to seek help for marijuana abuse.
How many entered treatment programs for alcohol? How many tried to give up cigarettes? Let's see some context here.
8) Frequent heavy users of marijuana develop a tolerance to the drug. They require an increasingly higher dosage to get the high they seek.
This is true for every drug, including alcohol and cigarettes. It is not a convincing argument for banning marijuana alone.
It pisses me off to see posts like this. People who are likely to encourage kids and others to view marijuana and other drugs (tobacco and alcohol included) as a harmless thing. Then get all righteous, spurting BS about "freedom" and "lies." Yeah, everything you read on the 'net is true. Isn't it wonderful what you learn?
Yes, your post is an excellent example: you provide little or no context for your 'points', you quite often get your facts wrong, you extrapolate 'facts' from unproven assertions, and in some cases your facts are wrong.
Remember kids, just because someone posts footnotes doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.
Let's look at the fundamentals of what's going on in the U.S. right now:
It's not OK for kids to watch South Park, Eyes Wide Shut & American Pie because such movies may 'twist' them and make them become anti-social (and what is meant by anti-social? Being non-conformative?).
BUT...
It's perfectly OK for kids to have ready access to guns, even though a small few might use them to kill people.
Er..doesn't class action lawsuits require a, um, class of people to agree to sue?
Nope. All they require is that a class exists and that some members of that class (no matter how few), are willing to bring the action.
Although originally a good idea, most class action lawsuits are merely licences for lawyers to print money. Quite often with a judge on the take as well....
The fact that South Park scores so 'well' on the CAP scale simply proves that the movie did what it was intended to do, and Mr. CAP fell right into the trap.
Irony isn't dead in America, it's just involuntary.
Microsoft associate general counsel Tom Burt said he was disappointed in the decision, adding that Caldera's claim for European damages was "contrary to antitrust law."
I just love these kind of tidbits from the various M$ trials. 'Contrary to antitrust law' how, exactly? Perhaps the letter (does U.S. antitrust law only relate to the U.S., or have previous cases only been in the U.S.?), but certainly not the spirit of the law.
Grasping and straws, I'd say. And of course, such an attitude dovetails nicely with Bill's various comments about M$'s role in the global economy.
Oh well, if M$'s lawyers are going to react to these decisions in that hurt tone (as above), this should provide years of enjoyment....
I've got to admire MS on this one. This is one seriously well designed strategy. They can't make headway against basic web stuff, so they'll leverage their real monopoly (Forget Windows- it's Office.) to make the basic web seem much less useful. It might even work.
Sorry to nitpick, but I wouldn't call it a well designed strategy, but a tried and true strategy.
M$ isn't doing anything here that they haven't already done to lots of competitors - if you can't beat them, buy them, and if you can't buy them, use your leverage to put them out of business while you ramp up your quality.
For this strategy to work the following needs to happen:
Either M$ develop a server so great that those developing Apache and Linux admit defeat and give up or M$ develop a server good enough so that Apache and Linux lose customers and go out of business.
This is the problem for M$. Let's face it, Linux and Apache don't need a wholesale conversion of the Windoze-using masses to survive.
And of course, everyone is still assuming that Doze 2000 is going to be a great success. Sure, in theory it is nice to have all that integration in Office (and later in Doze), but when every yahoo in the organisation starts messing up the company intranet because they can, the webserver gets cracked because of M$'s buggy code, the average uptime hovers around 2 minutes and the whole thing requires $50,000 of server to run, people will still be looking for alternatives.
When that time comes, Linux and Apache will still be trucking around, possibly with a nice WordPerfect Suite for those that want it, a gui that doesn't frighten the lusers, and a system that runs Quake III on a P120.
Unless, of course, BeOS takes off and we all use that instead.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, @Home is owned by AT&T, those fun people who were talking about charging online merchants a fraction of any sale to a AT&T Broadband customer, and even for just "delivering" those customers to the merchant in the first place.
Actually, IIRC they were talking about charging online merchants in this manner for sales made when the merchants were hosted on AT&T's actual broadband network (i.e. their lines, their hosting setup, @Home's main customer website etc....).
I believe that AT&T/@Home has a vritual monopoly in the US on the cable modem lines. (My cable modem is certinaly AT&T/@Home, and it makes me think I should be posting this anonymously... oh well.) If it weren't for DSL, it would be a virtual broadband monopoly. Is there a lesson in here somewhere? A lesson that's been learned over and over again in history?
In Chicago alone we've got a couple of decent cable competitors, one of which is owned by Microsoft. Let's not go over the top on this one yet.
If we had other cable companies to get our cable modem service from, we wouldn't have to endlessly bitch about @Home.
But you'd still want, to, wouldn't you? Be fair.
From the other end, @Home would have to clean up their act to keep their customers.
To be honest, they were very good to me when I was a customer. And I left them for reasons not involving them in any way.
I know I've swicthed phone-in ISPs several times, and have found one which has service and capabilities that really match what I want. If we can't vote with our feet, but can only bitch against people who have weird "intellectual property" laws to stifle that bitching, we're hosed.
Even if I believed everything I've heard about @Home & AT&T, they'd still not be as bad as Ameritech or British Telecom. There are a lot of crap companies out there. AT&T isn't the only bugbear.
He posted "private" internal documents to a public forum. That's wrong. Just like I'd rather not have my credit card statement published in the Chicago Tribune.
Sheesh!
While the documents may show crappy business practices by @Home let's not castigate them for wanting to keep private documents private. Do you want them to make their root passwords public as well?
I had @Home for a while, and thought the service was just fine. I have DSL now, but the switch was due to cabling issues in my apartment, not the @Home service.
However, I had a WebRamp 700s as a firewall and for a period of about 4 weeks recorded at least 1 serious attack a day (Syn Flood, DoS, Ping Flood, etc....).
So yes, @Home is talking **** again.
Thanks for:
Playing XBoing all day
Telling everyone "I'll get to it in my *spare* time".
etc....
What was your username again? clickety-click
Perhaps they should do what our ASP just did - configure their firewall to deny packets on all ports except 21. Made accessing the Applications on port 80, never mind what else happens on port 80 (yes I know what that is), a bit difficult, though.....
I think way too many people have this attitude. It's simply not acceptible. Consumer or not, the stuff should work. If it's not targeted to professionals, great - don't put in the kinds of features that consumers don't need. Just because it's consumer-oriented doesn't mean it doesn't have to work as well as it claims to.
I agree totally, and that's why I said to the original author that he was right to rant. My comments were aimed at what one should really do concerning Apple products. Basically, despite Apple's press, don't use the IMac and the IBook for heavy work.
Hello? McFly? Mac models since the G3s have had video cards in them. My PowerMac G4 has an AGP 2X card doing its video. I think even iMacs have replaceable video cards inside, though I could be wrong. Can anyone else confirm that?
Yes, they also have replaceable video cards. But, speaking from experience (I'm an AppleCare Certified Technician), I'd just like to say: "Replaceable yes, easy, no."
If only I could play Diablo II on my iMac... Unfortunately, my revision A iMac suffers from the infamous "Green Light Of Death" syndrome (GLOD). Moderators, yes, this is an off-topic rant, but I'm trying to help and warn others.
I don't want to take away from what you're saying, because it is only right and proper to get steamed up about stupid design flaws in Macs. I've used Macs a lot and get called by "friends" quite often to, most often, help them with problems with their Performas, mostly made during that period from 1995-1998 when Apple really made shit computers.
Having said that, it's important to remember that the IMac and IBook are meant as consumer machines. While one might argue that you or I is a consumer, if you take a longer look at Apple's strategy, we're not the consumer being targeted.
The consumer being targeted is the basic computer user, who needs Office, Quicken, email, and web. Games are limited to chess, solitaire, and maybe Civilization, but we're not talking a lot of high-end here. Maybe with IMovie, we're talking some more high-end resolution stuff, but that's why they came out with the DV.
Before I was hired at my current job as the Mac specialist, someone convinced IT that they should buy some IBooks with Airport Cards so they could roam the building and be able to get into and all over our NT-Network. Fine, you might think, but basically the IBook definitely, and the MacOS generally, just wasn't up for it, for a variety of reasons I won't go into now. This is because the IBook is a consumer machine, not meant for high-end or business use.
So, in conclusion, it sucks that your IMac doesn't work this way for you and yes, it's due to some crappy design flaws. However, the IMac is made for your average faux-bohemian in a loft who cares more about coffee shops than computers or your average suburban mom/dad who feel the same way. If you want performance, flexibility, and, heck, a better computer, get a G4 (if you want to stay with Mac, that is). Just my opinion.
Lifestyle of 209.165.23.3: Preliminary Report
Recommended Action:
Further study is recommended, perhaps with an attempt to follow and study some of the close associates of the subject, namely 209.143.25.4 and 208.132.43.31.
Uh...just to let you know that Nextell blows goats... they have the worst coverage and they are known for having the worst customer service... they pretty much suck and they really don't care. I would dump them and go to a real service provider if I were you.
Thanks, but we're well aware of Nextel's failings. For instance, they work fine in the building I'm in, but if I go to the next one over - it doesn't work at all. I also live in downtown Chicago and get pretty much no coverage in my apartment at all.
We have other methods of notification that we use as well as the "texting" functionality on the Nextels.
...I've got too many bad connections with this.
We have Sitescope send us text messages to our Nextels at work when something bad happens. So you'll get that voicemail ringer out of the blue and it's always a message that says "Sitescope: foo server not responding...".
Now whenever I hear that voicemail ringer, with no previous call, I get a bad feeling.
So wouldn't work for me. Might work for everyone else....
This generally shouldn't become an issue, as the 802.11 standard allows for intelligent loadsharing (assuming rf coverage by more than one AP).
Is this load sharing the default or does it need to be configured?
I know we've set the range of the APs on both the cards and the stations to small so that it will switch when the user moves closer to another one....
We've been having these exact issues. Which is why we rolled out base stations to IT Operations for "testing" purposes at home and almost immediately ran into the 2.4 gHz cordless phone problem.
Having said that, once you're aware of the potential interference, wireless connectivity can be a real, real benefit. For base stations we're only using one official WaveLAN base station, and for the rest (including the home units) we're actually using Apple's Airport Base Stations, which are working very well.
The key to good performance, we've found, frequency issues aside, is to make sure to configure each base station to accept only certain mac addresses and space these out. This will ensure that if people walk around with their laptops, you won't suddenly have an issue where 30 people have a meeting and they're all using 1 base station. Especially if one of these is giving a streaming video presentation....
So, highly recommended, despite the various interference problems, which we've managed to overcome, to a greater extent. Just plan, plan, plan, as always....
Here in Korea, you can't publish any advertisement which compares products of one company with products of another company directly, whether it's true or not. I don't think it's allowed in the U.S. also.
You can in the United States (it's very common), but it is not allowed in many parts of Europe.
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/2q00/daikatana/daik atana-1.html
Like the others: funny, short, to the point.
FWIW, we're using it to serve streaming videos (no, not pron), and it works very well. No downtime as of yet, no hiccups, and a _lot_ of capacity.
"Microsoft correctly contends that under California law an injunction must be based on the prospect of future conduct.
If that's the case, then given both the evidence in the case so far (and the court's admission that Sun is likely to win the case), and, frankly, substantial and continuing evidence of M$'s dirty tricks, I can't see how the injunction was considered not necessary. Do these judges know anything about common sense?
1) Although it is not proven that Marijuana causes cancer, it has been shown that it contains as much or more of same chemicals contained in cigarettes that have been shown to cause cancer.
The number of food additives and drugs the FDA approve every year which 'have been shown to cause cancer' is staggering. Your point here is not a convincing one when used against marijuana alone.
Overconsumption of alcohol is said to be a major cause of liver failure and heart disease. Let's ban that. Saccharin and aspartame (Nutrasweet) cause cancer in lab rats. Let's ban them.
The fact is, that if you smoke pot, and you smoke just pot, you smoke a lot less than if you smoke cigarettes. And the correlation between smoking pot and getting addicted to cigarettes is not proven. This is probably because joints don't have the lovely chemicals put into cigarettes by the tobacco companies to get you hooked. But let's not ban cigarettes, OK?
2) Marijuana users are far more prone to chest infections, such as pneumonia. Hey, what did Sagan die of? 2+2 = 5, right?
If I remember correctly, Sagan was ill with something more serious before succumbing to pneumonia. Besides, alcohol depresses the immune system, cigarettes cause lung cancer....
3) The THC in marijuana has been shown to affect the immune system. Unlike alcohol, THC can stay in your body for weeks depending on how often you smoke.
Sorry, but the aftereffects of alcohol also stay in your blood for weeks after you drink, depending on how much you drink.
4) It is VERY evident that marijuana affects the neuralogical systems of the body. There are many well documented side effects of the drug. Doctors are still researching the effect of marijuana on the brain.
Every drug, including alcohol and tobacco, affect the neurological and other systems of the body. That's not a convincing argument vs. marijuana alone. Furthermore, scientific testing of marijuana has not yet been extensive enough to indicate how widespread the side effects are.
5) Studies among teenagers have shown that those who smoke marijuana are up to 104 times more likely to try and become addicted to other, more dangerous drugs, than those who have not tried.
No they don't. Holland has found that since legalising marijuana, the average age of their heroin users (heroin is considered the follow-on drug from marijuana) has increased steadily. This is a universally accepted indicator that younger people are not taking up stronger drugs.
6) Less than 1 in 4 high school students have ever used, or ever will use marijuana. I doubt that number is higher with responsible, job holding adults.
Sounds like a serious issue, then.
7) Marijuana is addictive. While not everyone who uses becomes an addict, there are many who seek it out compulsively. In 1995 165,000 people entered drug treatment programs to seek help for marijuana abuse.
How many entered treatment programs for alcohol? How many tried to give up cigarettes? Let's see some context here.
8) Frequent heavy users of marijuana develop a tolerance to the drug. They require an increasingly higher dosage to get the high they seek.
This is true for every drug, including alcohol and cigarettes. It is not a convincing argument for banning marijuana alone.
It pisses me off to see posts like this. People who are likely to encourage kids and others to view marijuana and other drugs (tobacco and alcohol included) as a harmless thing. Then get all righteous, spurting BS about "freedom" and "lies." Yeah, everything you read on the 'net is true. Isn't it wonderful what you learn?
Yes, your post is an excellent example: you provide little or no context for your 'points', you quite often get your facts wrong, you extrapolate 'facts' from unproven assertions, and in some cases your facts are wrong.
Remember kids, just because someone posts footnotes doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.
One phrase:
Everything in moderation.
I'm surprised that everyone has missed this, but the results of this 'test' are clear: W2K is secure. It's even secure regardless of firewalls!
After all, if it stays off-line enough no one will be able to get through.
Kudos to M$ for another job well done!
Let's look at the fundamentals of what's going on in the U.S. right now:
It's not OK for kids to watch South Park, Eyes Wide Shut & American Pie because such movies may 'twist' them and make them become anti-social (and what is meant by anti-social? Being non-conformative?).
BUT...
It's perfectly OK for kids to have ready access to guns, even though a small few might use them to kill people.
You can't have the 1st OR the 2nd amendments.
Er..doesn't class action lawsuits require a, um, class of people to agree to sue?
Nope. All they require is that a class exists and that some members of that class (no matter how few), are willing to bring the action.
Although originally a good idea, most class action lawsuits are merely licences for lawyers to print money. Quite often with a judge on the take as well....
So, 10p/minute. It's nice to see BT provide another low-cost service, as usual.
The fact that South Park scores so 'well' on the CAP scale simply proves that the movie did what it was intended to do, and Mr. CAP fell right into the trap.
Irony isn't dead in America, it's just involuntary.
Microsoft associate general counsel Tom Burt said he was disappointed in the decision, adding that Caldera's claim for European damages was "contrary to antitrust law."
I just love these kind of tidbits from the various M$ trials. 'Contrary to antitrust law' how, exactly? Perhaps the letter (does U.S. antitrust law only relate to the U.S., or have previous cases only been in the U.S.?), but certainly not the spirit of the law.
Grasping and straws, I'd say. And of course, such an attitude dovetails nicely with Bill's various comments about M$'s role in the global economy.
Oh well, if M$'s lawyers are going to react to these decisions in that hurt tone (as above), this should provide years of enjoyment....
I've got to admire MS on this one. This is one seriously well designed strategy. They can't make headway against basic web stuff, so they'll leverage their real monopoly (Forget Windows- it's Office.) to make the basic web seem much less useful. It might even work.
:)
Sorry to nitpick, but I wouldn't call it a well designed strategy, but a tried and true strategy.
M$ isn't doing anything here that they haven't already done to lots of competitors - if you can't beat them, buy them, and if you can't buy them, use your leverage to put them out of business while you ramp up your quality.
For this strategy to work the following needs to happen:
Either M$ develop a server so great that those developing Apache and Linux admit defeat and give up or M$ develop a server good enough so that Apache and Linux lose customers and go out of business.
This is the problem for M$. Let's face it, Linux and Apache don't need a wholesale conversion of the Windoze-using masses to survive.
And of course, everyone is still assuming that Doze 2000 is going to be a great success. Sure, in theory it is nice to have all that integration in Office (and later in Doze), but when every yahoo in the organisation starts messing up the company intranet because they can, the webserver gets cracked because of M$'s buggy code, the average uptime hovers around 2 minutes and the whole thing requires $50,000 of server to run, people will still be looking for alternatives.
When that time comes, Linux and Apache will still be trucking around, possibly with a nice WordPerfect Suite for those that want it, a gui that doesn't frighten the lusers, and a system that runs Quake III on a P120.
Unless, of course, BeOS takes off and we all use that instead.