Get two hard drives and have them save only their data on one (probably won't be alot), and install all program files on the other. Keep installation CD's on hand. Format and reinstall as necessary.
$1 per message... hmm I wonder if that figure includes the estimated amount of time employees will spend browsing comments on an article that exists because of spam... that would certainly explain that horrendously high price.
And as for spam filters in companies, the cost should be nominal since not all users would use it individually, but it would be applied to the company's entire email system.
PS. I get about 2 spam messages per month...I can't begin to imagine how people recieve 2000 per day!
I don't want to be Mr Opposition here, but I for one am against anti-spam legislation. Now, I hate spam as much as the next guy, and I do as much as I can to avoid recieving it (ie keeping email address confidential, filters, blocklists, etc.), but it is certainly not the government's job. If anything, such legislation robs individuals and companies of their rights, namely their rights to use internet email as the system stands to their own discretion, but also the right to communicate (dont reject this just yet, ill get back to it). Regardless of the fact that the majority of the population dislikes spam, whenever the government takes rights away from citizens, it is a form of tyranny. It is important that we do not allow the rights of any minority to be revoked, otherwise it becomes easier in the future for such to occur to other minorities. Today we may be taking away advertiser's ability to use a communication medium (because we dislike them), but tomorrow it could be you.
When the human race is destroying itself due to stupidity and hate, and the individuals that see this are powerless to do anything about it because those in power "dont like" their ideas, you can trace the cause back to laws such as these.
PS. I may be exagerating the effect of this one law as a singularity: there have been and will be many more such laws, but that is no argument against trying to do the right thing...we must learn to think collectively through reason and justification, not mass opinion.
Ok hear me out here...
Keyboard:
Firstly the vertical keyboard really does cut down on arm tension while typing, you can tell by just feeling the way your hands would be positioned. However, as some of you pointed out, a flat keyboard may be more appropriate for certain applications which do not involve straight typing... now it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that the best way to combine both of these benefits is to allow your keyboard to rotate: ie the two vertical halves rotate to flat. (the rocket scientists were too busy fiddling with that wierd glove thing) This design improvement wouldnt be too hard and makes you wonder whether such a keyboard is really worth the amount they charge, because you seriously could saw a $10 keyboard in half, use alot of duct tape, and get to essentially the same thing. All this aside, I cannot deny the ergonomics that the verticality brings.
The MOUSE, on the other hand, is just rediculous. I dont believe I can speak for all computer users when i say this, but I believe i represent at least 10%: although major movement of the mouse cursor may be due to moving your arm(barely), any fine mouse motions i make (and by fine i mean within 100 pixels) are done by keeping my palm stationary and moving the mouse with my fingers. If you'll notice, this is IMPOSSIBLE on the mouse that they have designed, because the base that you rest your palm on is attatched to the mouse. This is sort of like glueing your mouse to your mousepad and cutting a little hole in the bottom for the ball or the optic or whathaveyou. And while Microsoft would probly replace your mouse since there was no warning about the misuse of heavy duty glue on mice, I am rather attatched to my nifty x-files mousepad. Back to the point though, by making your palm no longer rest on the surface, but on the mouse itself, usability suffers greatly... ok im done ranting i just had to point out that apparent design flaw... do you guys agree?
Wow... I just spend 15 minutes writing a real nice post then decided to create an account, and lost all of it... well better get to recapping.
I think the ransom model is an interesting idea, but it would need some sort of legal type restriction, to prevent people like Microsoft claiming that they need to raise 13 million dollars to pay for the production of their latest OS (which coincidentally you'll have to pay for anyway when you need a faster computer to surpass 3fps) For example, the relationship between the monetary goal and the time that copyright holds should be inversely related. (perhaps the time should even be squared) IE k = (T^2)*$ (the constant would be something along the lines of 10,000 dollars2 years)
Under this system, when a developer or an artist released a product, they would declare the amount of time and/or amount of income they expect to obtain. For example, a pop artist might realise the short life of their product, and choose to stop after 3 months, or accordingly, 160,000 dollars. (Notice how much Ive scaled down the amount of profit pop artists make... that is just another modest suggestion) OTOH, a modest software developer might reach to make 10,000 and alot himself the course of a year.
Obviously though this isnt fair (I hate to say it) to big groups like Microsoft. It would therefore be necessary to include the pure raw capitol used to create the products (not wages in any way) and the number of people, N, who contributed. The final equation would look something like:
$ = N^(2/3) * k / (T&2) + C
The C would not be affected by any factors, so that everything else only determines the profit. ALso the N would be raised to a power less than 1 to prevent developers from tacking on extra employees to increase what they can charge.
Any suggestions to add / bashes to make to my model? I think the ransom system could be a good compromise between the copyright-greedy producers, and the uncooperating whatever-they-are's. ANyway Ive got to go. Later~
Slashdot Mirror
Wait wait wait... was the parent a joke or are they f***in' serious??
As if those who "acquired" the Operating system in the first place couldn't just "acquired" the downloads for which verification is to be required...
Get two hard drives and have them save only their data on one (probably won't be alot), and install all program files on the other. Keep installation CD's on hand. Format and reinstall as necessary.
$1 per message... hmm I wonder if that figure includes the estimated amount of time employees will spend browsing comments on an article that exists because of spam... that would certainly explain that horrendously high price. And as for spam filters in companies, the cost should be nominal since not all users would use it individually, but it would be applied to the company's entire email system. PS. I get about 2 spam messages per month...I can't begin to imagine how people recieve 2000 per day!
I don't want to be Mr Opposition here, but I for one am against anti-spam legislation. Now, I hate spam as much as the next guy, and I do as much as I can to avoid recieving it (ie keeping email address confidential, filters, blocklists, etc.), but it is certainly not the government's job. If anything, such legislation robs individuals and companies of their rights, namely their rights to use internet email as the system stands to their own discretion, but also the right to communicate (dont reject this just yet, ill get back to it). Regardless of the fact that the majority of the population dislikes spam, whenever the government takes rights away from citizens, it is a form of tyranny. It is important that we do not allow the rights of any minority to be revoked, otherwise it becomes easier in the future for such to occur to other minorities. Today we may be taking away advertiser's ability to use a communication medium (because we dislike them), but tomorrow it could be you.
When the human race is destroying itself due to stupidity and hate, and the individuals that see this are powerless to do anything about it because those in power "dont like" their ideas, you can trace the cause back to laws such as these. PS. I may be exagerating the effect of this one law as a singularity: there have been and will be many more such laws, but that is no argument against trying to do the right thing...we must learn to think collectively through reason and justification, not mass opinion.
Ok hear me out here... Keyboard: Firstly the vertical keyboard really does cut down on arm tension while typing, you can tell by just feeling the way your hands would be positioned. However, as some of you pointed out, a flat keyboard may be more appropriate for certain applications which do not involve straight typing... now it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that the best way to combine both of these benefits is to allow your keyboard to rotate: ie the two vertical halves rotate to flat. (the rocket scientists were too busy fiddling with that wierd glove thing) This design improvement wouldnt be too hard and makes you wonder whether such a keyboard is really worth the amount they charge, because you seriously could saw a $10 keyboard in half, use alot of duct tape, and get to essentially the same thing. All this aside, I cannot deny the ergonomics that the verticality brings. The MOUSE, on the other hand, is just rediculous. I dont believe I can speak for all computer users when i say this, but I believe i represent at least 10%: although major movement of the mouse cursor may be due to moving your arm(barely), any fine mouse motions i make (and by fine i mean within 100 pixels) are done by keeping my palm stationary and moving the mouse with my fingers. If you'll notice, this is IMPOSSIBLE on the mouse that they have designed, because the base that you rest your palm on is attatched to the mouse. This is sort of like glueing your mouse to your mousepad and cutting a little hole in the bottom for the ball or the optic or whathaveyou. And while Microsoft would probly replace your mouse since there was no warning about the misuse of heavy duty glue on mice, I am rather attatched to my nifty x-files mousepad. Back to the point though, by making your palm no longer rest on the surface, but on the mouse itself, usability suffers greatly... ok im done ranting i just had to point out that apparent design flaw... do you guys agree?
Wow... I just spend 15 minutes writing a real nice post then decided to create an account, and lost all of it... well better get to recapping.
I think the ransom model is an interesting idea, but it would need some sort of legal type restriction, to prevent people like Microsoft claiming that they need to raise 13 million dollars to pay for the production of their latest OS (which coincidentally you'll have to pay for anyway when you need a faster computer to surpass 3fps) For example, the relationship between the monetary goal and the time that copyright holds should be inversely related. (perhaps the time should even be squared) IE k = (T^2)*$ (the constant would be something along the lines of 10,000 dollars2 years)
Under this system, when a developer or an artist released a product, they would declare the amount of time and/or amount of income they expect to obtain. For example, a pop artist might realise the short life of their product, and choose to stop after 3 months, or accordingly, 160,000 dollars. (Notice how much Ive scaled down the amount of profit pop artists make... that is just another modest suggestion) OTOH, a modest software developer might reach to make 10,000 and alot himself the course of a year.
Obviously though this isnt fair (I hate to say it) to big groups like Microsoft. It would therefore be necessary to include the pure raw capitol used to create the products (not wages in any way) and the number of people, N, who contributed. The final equation would look something like:
$ = N^(2/3) * k / (T&2) + C
The C would not be affected by any factors, so that everything else only determines the profit. ALso the N would be raised to a power less than 1 to prevent developers from tacking on extra employees to increase what they can charge.
Any suggestions to add / bashes to make to my model? I think the ransom system could be a good compromise between the copyright-greedy producers, and the uncooperating whatever-they-are's. ANyway Ive got to go. Later~