Matt Oppenheim from the Recording Industry Association of America responds:
... When you buy a CD, you should feel free to copy it for your own use. So, if you buy a CD that you keep at home, you should feel free to make a copy that you have in your car....
Let me guess. This is why the new "copy-protected" CDs won't even play in a computer? I would like to see this statement backed by the actions of the RIAA's member companies.
This is just yet another attempt by a government agency at empire building. SPAM is nowhere NEAR a level of importance or National Security that would require investigations or legal proceedings to be held in secret.
I am guessing you say that based on your extensive experience and the knowledge that a.gov or.mil mailserver has never ever been spammed. While I agree that in most cases the powers the FTC is asking for are unnecessary, your blanket statement is equally as bad. There are times when, in the interest of national security, something like this would be very helpful.
That being said, I echo a previous poster's sentiment that we must tread carefully on these matters becuase the government does have a tendency to abuse power.
I have no love for Clinton (but a much larger disdain for the current admin's theft of our rights), it is better to knock him for what was done wrong rather than come off sounding like Bill Gates or Rush Limbaugh.
The only thing worse was IIRC Boeing it was that moved Loral rocket technology to China to launch satellites knowing damn well that much of that technology was dual purpose. Now the PRC has missile technology that is approaching ours. Thank you corporate America, may so many of you be among the first up against the wall.
What's worse is how the FTC (under Clinton) approved the sale of several supercomputers (Crays I believe) that were on the export control list to China. This happened around the same time as the missile technology thing. The really scary thing was that the FTC asked China to let them inspect the facilities where these supercomputers were to be user for "academic research" and China said no. A major corporation with ties to China made a huge contribution to Clinton's reelection campaing, and voila, sale gets approved.
Of course nobody even noticed because the same week (or month) as all this happened the Lewinski scandal broke and Americans seemed to care more about who blew the pres in the oval office. Nobody cared that we gave away to the Chinese missile technology and the computer horsepower to be able to target us with it.
We need a Better Business Bureau like association for EULA's. Where software companies can get their software certified and then being able to display a seal of approval on the packaging by having their EULA user friendly. There could be different levels of friendliness and reviews on software that didn't want to apply for certification.
We already have something like that, but unfortunately the corporations beat us to it. The seal of approval you speak of bears the wording "Designed for Windows XP" (or something similar) and signifies that software has passed Redmond's rigorous anti-user friendly requirements.
Services change all the time. You can't expect a business to be able to look into the future, their business model may have to change in order to stay successful.
You are only halfway correct. They may not be able to look into the future, but they sure as heck better know what is going at present. For example, you purchase software X and it depends on your ability to access a MS.NET server on which part of the app will reside (a subscription service that you must pay for). That had better be spelled out on the FRONT of the box, or it will piss off many customers.
Think of it this way: You buy a new car. After 5,000 miles, the check engine light comes on. You go to the dealer and they say, "Oh yeah. by the way you need to bring in your car every 5,000 miles for as long as you have it and we'll reset that light for you for $500. By the way, if you let it stay on, the car shuts off after 100 more miles." That is the sort of thing that line item is trying to avoid.
Now, if the business model or pricing changes, then they can notify the users and go at it from there, but the user should not buy something of which they are not aware (the requirement to subscribe to a service).
...people who patent ideas for things they have no intentions of building, hoping to license technology or block competitors from doing something similar.
It's funny how hippocritical our government is:
Patent something you have no intention of making: OK
Register a domain name you have no intention of using: NOT OK
(According to our governmnet) one is good business (get something someone else wants to buy), the other is cybersquatting. What is up with that?
Look at King County, Washington and the now demolished King Dome. They took the lowest bid on the dome from a company that simply couldn't deliver based on the the timeline and cost to contruct the dome.
I can't remember where I read it, but on the 50th anniversary (I think) of Sen. John Glenn's first flight into space a reporter asked, "What was going through your mind as you sat there waiting for liftoff?" Glenn responded, "Holy s$%^, this thing was built by the lowest bidder."
That most manufacturers aren't leaping to provide Linux support on their tablet PCs doesn't
mean it isn't possible;)
When will manufacturers (not just tablet PCs, but hardware across the board) realize that supporting Linux will benefit them greatly? I mean, even the small steps that nVidia has taken has won the hearts of many a geek.
I guess they just don't realize it. Funny thing is, I have a friend who works for ATI and says that they use Linux workstations do big chunks of their development, but have never considered explicitly supporting their stuff on Linux. Maybe we should be more vocal as a community.
There are about 3 million lines of code in the linux source. 80 lines are 0,003%. For SCO's sake i hope they have more evidence than these 80 lines - and that they can prove that the didn't rip them off them selves - either from linux or BSD.
So, $1B (the amount SCO is suing for) divided by 0.003% = $3.333x10^13. That means that the Linux kernel is worth more than $33 trillion. Quick, everyone let's lock up the source code in Fort Knox before SCO goes for the rest.
From Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language:
virus (vi'res), n. pl.-rus-es. 1. an ultramicroscopic (20 to 300 nm in diameter), metabolically inert infectious agent that replicates only within the cells of living hosts, mainly bacteria, plants, and animals: composed of an RNA or DNA core, a protein coat, and in more complex viruses, a surrounding envelope. 2.Informal.a viral disease. 3. a corrupting influence on morals or the intellect; poison; the virus of intollerence4. a segment of self-replicating code planted illegaly in a computer program, often to damage or shut down a system or network. [1590-1600 virus slime, poison; akin to ooze] --vi'rus-like',adj.
The servers at your bank which track your balance, those mysterious "power grid" servers that HomeSec keeps spreading cyberterror FUD about, military computers with Top Secret documents, etc.
These machines are unlikely to be interfaced with a public net at all, especially not sitting on a fat pipe; but many of them have to network _somehow_.
I can't speak about the first two, but in the military, the way we "network" computers of differing classification levels is via CD* (that's right, compact disc). I.e., if we are going to install the new Windows service pack on our top secret network, the guy in the data center downloads it on an unclassified machine (connected to the public internet), burns it to CD and pops it into a machine on the top secret network.
This of course is in place to prevent "leaks" of information. IIRC, the physical network cables cannot even be within a certain physical distancce of each other (even in the walls).
* Before CD burners became common in the data centers we used floppies. What happened then, becuase floppies are magnetic and can easily be written to, was once it went into a top secret machine it was forever more top secret.
I have had it up to here (pointing to head) with all this BS with email worms/virii and the media.
Um, the correct form is viruses.
Does anyone have an idea of why end users use the software they use in the face of all the reasons/reccomendatios not to?
Inertia. I usually hear, "But IE came with my computer and I don't feel like switching to something else." In my case, the people that I have talked to seem to agree that the simple act of visiting a website or opening an email (not to mention the attachment) should NOT make you a victim of viruses and drive-by downloads. Once they agree to that, is is simply a matter of popping in a CD and isntalling Mozilla.
I have yet to meet a single person that actually wanted to switch back to IE. They are always thrilled by the download manager, the ability to block popups, and the fact that clicking a link won't let the site hijack their machine.
a lot of people I've talked to just don't like openoffice
The only people that I have talked to that don't like OpenOffice.org, don't like becuase it is not exactly like MS Office. But this is unrealistic. They are functional equivalents (to a degree). I.e., OpenOffice.org and MS Office are both office productivity suites that provide word processing, spread sheet, and presentation functions. Similarly, GNU/Linux and Windows are operating systems that allow your computer hardware to execute applications. Get the idea?
Most of the people the I have showed OpenOffice.org to are totally floored by it. It is usually faster (most of my friends don't work on huge spreadsheets), can export directly to PDF, can export presentations to Macromedia Flash (I would love to see MS Office do that), and of course it imports/exports MS formats extremely well.
The government has the money and resources to make a simple "MS Word style" program and make it publicly available to open any document they release.
The government doesn't do this for the same reason the IRS doesn't provide a free tax-filing service that includes e-filing (I mean like H&R Block style, since you can technically do them yourself and mail them in). The outcry from corporations, their special interest groups, and their lobbyists would be very bad. Sad, right? Our government doesn't do what's in the best interest of the people, for the simple reason of not pissing off the corporations.
If software vendors release their software as open source, they may find that cash-strapped governments in other states gladly help themselves to it for free, so the vendor may get only one paying contract instead of fifty.
IIRC, the GPL specifies that you only need to make the source available to the entities to which you distribute binaries. I.e., if Michigan gets a contract with some company for some software, the company can release the software as GPL and only provide the source to the Michigan state government. It is then in the best interests of the state government to NOT redistribute the software. That way another state, say New York, also buys the software to make sure that the company is still there next year. The best thing is that if company X pisses off the state, they can take the source and hire company Y to maintain it. If I understand the intent of the GPL, this is the kind of choice that is available with free software.
Compare that to a previous post (I don't recall the exact thread) where the poster pointed out that his organization used a particalur personnel management product. PeopleSoft bought the competitor and disconitnued the product. Security flaws were found, his company had to spend $2M to switch to PeopleSoft. Had that software been GPL, they could have just hired another company to fix/maintain it. Again, in that situation it is in the company's best interest to NOT freely (as in beer) redistribute the program.
I think the same can be said for many non-commodity software products. I mean, how many people actually need or want (or have the hardware) to run a PeopleSoft level program at home? Better yet, if a company pays, say $250000, for a program and accompanying support, what incentive do they have to turn around and give it away? It seems to me that the GPL is really perfect for situations like this.
The entire process of "teaching" in that environment is only suitable for subjects that allow lots of "round table" style discussion. A liturature class where the plot motives are hashed out online in a forum would be a good example.
Math and science is next to impossible.
I have to say that I disagree. I think that sciences (unless there is a lab component) are just as valid for the online format. For example, in my case I took a Modern Physics class online as a transient at the local community college (it is required for my CpE major and the section offered at the university did not fit into my scheduled). I talked with several of my friends that were taking the traditional sit-in-the-classroom version at the university, and many of them struggled to comprehend the material. Because the online class required a certain number of valid (as determined by the instructor) contributions to the discussion board and weekly quizzes, I felt that there was more involvement by everyone. Of course, there were people who only did the minimum.
The best part, and probably what impacted the experience the most, was that the professor was very knowledgable and made many contributions to the discussion. The students never really felt on their own. If someone asked a question and another student not respond with a correct answer/explanation fairly soon, the professor made sure not to leave the question hanging for more than 24 hours.
I know...ermmm...some people... who pirated professional software development packages when they were younger in order to learnsoftware development to obtain employment skills, and later when he became employed as a developer he PAID for those tools by buying a full copy of the latest version. (Emphasis mine)
Umm... I have never heard of anyone buying (or otherwise obtaingin) a package to learn software development.
Software development is what you learn in a Computer Engineering/Software Engineering curriculum. If you go to a good school, the professors force you to write standard C or C++ (i.e., no using proprietary libraries or functions), so that you learn concepts regardless of the tool that you use.
Basically, your agurment falls apart. If someone is well educated and understands the concepts and theories (be it software development, photo editing, or network admin) then they know how it works and learning the tool is only a matter of a couple of weeks to get up to speed. If you buy the tool and it takes you two years to learn the concepts underlying what you do with the tool, then you are wasting your time.
For almost any government project i have seen, Windows is the choice by the government.
Up until a few years ago I worked in a 50,000 square foot military Joint Operations Facility with about 2000 employees. I could count the number of Windows terminals on both hands. Nearly everything was SPARC workstations, Ultra servers, and a few big 12- to 24-processor SGIs for crypto work.
The only reason we even had the Windows terminals was for some admin tasks that we could not accomplish on the SPARCs.
Microsoft is a long way from its ultimate goal where users can take security for granted in its products
This is precisely the problem we have now. People already take security for granted (they don't think about it). Their goal should be to beef up security and to educate everyone about the features so that they become more security concious, rather than just take it for granted.
Seriously, this is really bad news. I'm pretty sure that the extremely easy access to software for windows is one of the main reasons why so many use the crap instead of free/open source software.
A couple of months ago I started asking my friends at school (all comp sci, or comp or elec eng), "Why don't you use free software instead of that windows crap?" The most common response was somenthing along the lines of, "Sure it's free, I didn't pay a dime for it." (Most of my friends have pirated copies of Win 2000/XP Pro, MS Office Pro, VS.NET
My response to them is usually to tell them how much it pisses me off that their activities make life harder on everyone trying to use legitimately free software (think surcharges on blank media and DRM schemes designed to "protect" is).
I think that the problem is that people do not see pirating software as a problem. It is sort of like speeding: so many people do it is a very small chance any one person gets caught, and if you do get caught the consequences are not that bad. I don't personally agree with the licenseing terms of windows and many of its associated popular tools, so I switched to something with more favorabe terms (and that happens to be more functional and reliable). Unfortunately most people solve the MS licensing delimma by hitting KaZaA.
Don't allow people to use languages that allow you to access memory not assigned to you or to access array positions that don't exist.
It always bugs me at how quick people are to blame the problem for crappy coding on the language. This would be tantamount to a carpenter saying, "if my hammers weren't so damned versatile I could build a higher quality product and not break my thumb open." People would look at him like he was crazy. Or better yet, an inexperienced apprentice saying, "That hammer is just too powerful for me to use."
That being said, C and C++ are the hammer that was designed by carpenters (OS experts) for use by caprenters (OS experts). Don't blame the problems on a bunch of kids who are neverly properly educated on the use of the tool.
so the patent protects scripts that make multiple lookups transparent to the user (at least, according to the oh-so-trustworthy register). so just eliminate transparency: "looking up register.com" "looking up register.net" "looking up register.org" instead of not eliminating transparency: "looking up register" ouchies
If you were really clever you send the "progress" messages to stderr and the final information to stdout. That way the user can workaround it by sending only stderr into/dev/null. Voila, no more patent infrigement and if the user bothers to RTFM, they can make it transparent again.
Slashdot Mirror
Matt Oppenheim from the Recording Industry Association of America responds:
Let me guess. This is why the new "copy-protected" CDs won't even play in a computer? I would like to see this statement backed by the actions of the RIAA's member companies.
This is just yet another attempt by a government agency at empire building. SPAM is nowhere NEAR a level of importance or National Security that would require investigations or legal proceedings to be held in secret.
I am guessing you say that based on your extensive experience and the knowledge that a .gov or .mil mailserver has never ever been spammed. While I agree that in most cases the powers the FTC is asking for are unnecessary, your blanket statement is equally as bad. There are times when, in the interest of national security, something like this would be very helpful.
That being said, I echo a previous poster's sentiment that we must tread carefully on these matters becuase the government does have a tendency to abuse power.
I have no love for Clinton (but a much larger disdain for the current admin's theft of our rights), it is better to knock him for what was done wrong rather than come off sounding like Bill Gates or Rush Limbaugh.
I must totally agree with you there. Point taken.
The only thing worse was IIRC Boeing it was that moved Loral rocket technology to China to launch satellites knowing damn well that much of that technology was dual purpose. Now the PRC has missile technology that is approaching ours. Thank you corporate America, may so many of you be among the first up against the wall.
What's worse is how the FTC (under Clinton) approved the sale of several supercomputers (Crays I believe) that were on the export control list to China. This happened around the same time as the missile technology thing. The really scary thing was that the FTC asked China to let them inspect the facilities where these supercomputers were to be user for "academic research" and China said no. A major corporation with ties to China made a huge contribution to Clinton's reelection campaing, and voila, sale gets approved.
Of course nobody even noticed because the same week (or month) as all this happened the Lewinski scandal broke and Americans seemed to care more about who blew the pres in the oval office. Nobody cared that we gave away to the Chinese missile technology and the computer horsepower to be able to target us with it.
We need a Better Business Bureau like association for EULA's. Where software companies can get their software certified and then being able to display a seal of approval on the packaging by having their EULA user friendly. There could be different levels of friendliness and reviews on software that didn't want to apply for certification.
We already have something like that, but unfortunately the corporations beat us to it. The seal of approval you speak of bears the wording "Designed for Windows XP" (or something similar) and signifies that software has passed Redmond's rigorous anti-user friendly requirements.
Services change all the time. You can't expect a business to be able to look into the future, their business model may have to change in order to stay successful.
You are only halfway correct. They may not be able to look into the future, but they sure as heck better know what is going at present. For example, you purchase software X and it depends on your ability to access a MS .NET server on which part of the app will reside (a subscription service that you must pay for). That had better be spelled out on the FRONT of the box, or it will piss off many customers.
Think of it this way: You buy a new car. After 5,000 miles, the check engine light comes on. You go to the dealer and they say, "Oh yeah. by the way you need to bring in your car every 5,000 miles for as long as you have it and we'll reset that light for you for $500. By the way, if you let it stay on, the car shuts off after 100 more miles." That is the sort of thing that line item is trying to avoid.
Now, if the business model or pricing changes, then they can notify the users and go at it from there, but the user should not buy something of which they are not aware (the requirement to subscribe to a service).
It's funny how hippocritical our government is:
(According to our governmnet) one is good business (get something someone else wants to buy), the other is cybersquatting. What is up with that?
Look at King County, Washington and the now demolished King Dome. They took the lowest bid on the dome from a company that simply couldn't deliver based on the the timeline and cost to contruct the dome.
I can't remember where I read it, but on the 50th anniversary (I think) of Sen. John Glenn's first flight into space a reporter asked, "What was going through your mind as you sat there waiting for liftoff?" Glenn responded, "Holy s$%^, this thing was built by the lowest bidder."
It's a good thing that proprietary software companies don't fall prey to those lurking IP encumbrances that plague the Open Source world.
That most manufacturers aren't leaping to provide Linux support on their tablet PCs doesn't mean it isn't possible ;)
When will manufacturers (not just tablet PCs, but hardware across the board) realize that supporting Linux will benefit them greatly? I mean, even the small steps that nVidia has taken has won the hearts of many a geek.
I guess they just don't realize it. Funny thing is, I have a friend who works for ATI and says that they use Linux workstations do big chunks of their development, but have never considered explicitly supporting their stuff on Linux. Maybe we should be more vocal as a community.
There are about 3 million lines of code in the linux source. 80 lines are 0,003%. For SCO's sake i hope they have more evidence than these 80 lines - and that they can prove that the didn't rip them off them selves - either from linux or BSD.
So, $1B (the amount SCO is suing for) divided by 0.003% = $3.333x10^13. That means that the Linux kernel is worth more than $33 trillion. Quick, everyone let's lock up the source code in Fort Knox before SCO goes for the rest.
Um, the correct plural form is virus.
From Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language:
The servers at your bank which track your balance, those mysterious "power grid" servers that HomeSec keeps spreading cyberterror FUD about, military computers with Top Secret documents, etc.
These machines are unlikely to be interfaced with a public net at all, especially not sitting on a fat pipe; but many of them have to network _somehow_.
I can't speak about the first two, but in the military, the way we "network" computers of differing classification levels is via CD* (that's right, compact disc). I.e., if we are going to install the new Windows service pack on our top secret network, the guy in the data center downloads it on an unclassified machine (connected to the public internet), burns it to CD and pops it into a machine on the top secret network.
This of course is in place to prevent "leaks" of information. IIRC, the physical network cables cannot even be within a certain physical distancce of each other (even in the walls).
* Before CD burners became common in the data centers we used floppies. What happened then, becuase floppies are magnetic and can easily be written to, was once it went into a top secret machine it was forever more top secret.
I have had it up to here (pointing to head) with all this BS with email worms/virii and the media.
Um, the correct form is viruses.
Does anyone have an idea of why end users use the software they use in the face of all the reasons/reccomendatios not to?
Inertia. I usually hear, "But IE came with my computer and I don't feel like switching to something else." In my case, the people that I have talked to seem to agree that the simple act of visiting a website or opening an email (not to mention the attachment) should NOT make you a victim of viruses and drive-by downloads. Once they agree to that, is is simply a matter of popping in a CD and isntalling Mozilla.
I have yet to meet a single person that actually wanted to switch back to IE. They are always thrilled by the download manager, the ability to block popups, and the fact that clicking a link won't let the site hijack their machine.
a lot of people I've talked to just don't like openoffice
The only people that I have talked to that don't like OpenOffice.org, don't like becuase it is not exactly like MS Office. But this is unrealistic. They are functional equivalents (to a degree). I.e., OpenOffice.org and MS Office are both office productivity suites that provide word processing, spread sheet, and presentation functions. Similarly, GNU/Linux and Windows are operating systems that allow your computer hardware to execute applications. Get the idea?
Most of the people the I have showed OpenOffice.org to are totally floored by it. It is usually faster (most of my friends don't work on huge spreadsheets), can export directly to PDF, can export presentations to Macromedia Flash (I would love to see MS Office do that), and of course it imports/exports MS formats extremely well.
The government has the money and resources to make a simple "MS Word style" program and make it publicly available to open any document they release.
The government doesn't do this for the same reason the IRS doesn't provide a free tax-filing service that includes e-filing (I mean like H&R Block style, since you can technically do them yourself and mail them in). The outcry from corporations, their special interest groups, and their lobbyists would be very bad. Sad, right? Our government doesn't do what's in the best interest of the people, for the simple reason of not pissing off the corporations.
If software vendors release their software as open source, they may find that cash-strapped governments in other states gladly help themselves to it for free, so the vendor may get only one paying contract instead of fifty.
IIRC, the GPL specifies that you only need to make the source available to the entities to which you distribute binaries. I.e., if Michigan gets a contract with some company for some software, the company can release the software as GPL and only provide the source to the Michigan state government. It is then in the best interests of the state government to NOT redistribute the software. That way another state, say New York, also buys the software to make sure that the company is still there next year. The best thing is that if company X pisses off the state, they can take the source and hire company Y to maintain it. If I understand the intent of the GPL, this is the kind of choice that is available with free software.
Compare that to a previous post (I don't recall the exact thread) where the poster pointed out that his organization used a particalur personnel management product. PeopleSoft bought the competitor and disconitnued the product. Security flaws were found, his company had to spend $2M to switch to PeopleSoft. Had that software been GPL, they could have just hired another company to fix/maintain it. Again, in that situation it is in the company's best interest to NOT freely (as in beer) redistribute the program.
I think the same can be said for many non-commodity software products. I mean, how many people actually need or want (or have the hardware) to run a PeopleSoft level program at home? Better yet, if a company pays, say $250000, for a program and accompanying support, what incentive do they have to turn around and give it away? It seems to me that the GPL is really perfect for situations like this.
The entire process of "teaching" in that environment is only suitable for subjects that allow lots of "round table" style discussion. A liturature class where the plot motives are hashed out online in a forum would be a good example.
Math and science is next to impossible.
I have to say that I disagree. I think that sciences (unless there is a lab component) are just as valid for the online format. For example, in my case I took a Modern Physics class online as a transient at the local community college (it is required for my CpE major and the section offered at the university did not fit into my scheduled). I talked with several of my friends that were taking the traditional sit-in-the-classroom version at the university, and many of them struggled to comprehend the material. Because the online class required a certain number of valid (as determined by the instructor) contributions to the discussion board and weekly quizzes, I felt that there was more involvement by everyone. Of course, there were people who only did the minimum.
The best part, and probably what impacted the experience the most, was that the professor was very knowledgable and made many contributions to the discussion. The students never really felt on their own. If someone asked a question and another student not respond with a correct answer/explanation fairly soon, the professor made sure not to leave the question hanging for more than 24 hours.
I know...ermmm...some people... who pirated professional software development packages when they were younger in order to learn software development to obtain employment skills, and later when he became employed as a developer he PAID for those tools by buying a full copy of the latest version. (Emphasis mine)
Umm... I have never heard of anyone buying (or otherwise obtaingin) a package to learn software development.
Software development is what you learn in a Computer Engineering/Software Engineering curriculum. If you go to a good school, the professors force you to write standard C or C++ (i.e., no using proprietary libraries or functions), so that you learn concepts regardless of the tool that you use.
Basically, your agurment falls apart. If someone is well educated and understands the concepts and theories (be it software development, photo editing, or network admin) then they know how it works and learning the tool is only a matter of a couple of weeks to get up to speed. If you buy the tool and it takes you two years to learn the concepts underlying what you do with the tool, then you are wasting your time.
Fix 1 security hole.
Introduce 100 bugs.
Some good, rigorous regression testing would esnure this doesn't happen. Oh, wait...
For almost any government project i have seen, Windows is the choice by the government.
Up until a few years ago I worked in a 50,000 square foot military Joint Operations Facility with about 2000 employees. I could count the number of Windows terminals on both hands. Nearly everything was SPARC workstations, Ultra servers, and a few big 12- to 24-processor SGIs for crypto work.
The only reason we even had the Windows terminals was for some admin tasks that we could not accomplish on the SPARCs.
Microsoft is a long way from its ultimate goal where users can take security for granted in its products
This is precisely the problem we have now. People already take security for granted (they don't think about it). Their goal should be to beef up security and to educate everyone about the features so that they become more security concious, rather than just take it for granted.
Seriously, this is really bad news. I'm pretty sure that the extremely easy access to software for windows is one of the main reasons why so many use the crap instead of free/open source software.
A couple of months ago I started asking my friends at school (all comp sci, or comp or elec eng), "Why don't you use free software instead of that windows crap?" The most common response was somenthing along the lines of, "Sure it's free, I didn't pay a dime for it." (Most of my friends have pirated copies of Win 2000/XP Pro, MS Office Pro, VS.NET
My response to them is usually to tell them how much it pisses me off that their activities make life harder on everyone trying to use legitimately free software (think surcharges on blank media and DRM schemes designed to "protect" is).
I think that the problem is that people do not see pirating software as a problem. It is sort of like speeding: so many people do it is a very small chance any one person gets caught, and if you do get caught the consequences are not that bad. I don't personally agree with the licenseing terms of windows and many of its associated popular tools, so I switched to something with more favorabe terms (and that happens to be more functional and reliable). Unfortunately most people solve the MS licensing delimma by hitting KaZaA.
Don't allow people to use languages that allow you to access memory not assigned to you or to access array positions that don't exist.
It always bugs me at how quick people are to blame the problem for crappy coding on the language. This would be tantamount to a carpenter saying, "if my hammers weren't so damned versatile I could build a higher quality product and not break my thumb open." People would look at him like he was crazy. Or better yet, an inexperienced apprentice saying, "That hammer is just too powerful for me to use."
That being said, C and C++ are the hammer that was designed by carpenters (OS experts) for use by caprenters (OS experts). Don't blame the problems on a bunch of kids who are neverly properly educated on the use of the tool.
so the patent protects scripts that make multiple lookups transparent to the user (at least, according to the oh-so-trustworthy register). so just eliminate transparency: "looking up register.com" "looking up register.net" "looking up register.org" instead of not eliminating transparency: "looking up register" ouchies
If you were really clever you send the "progress" messages to stderr and the final information to stdout. That way the user can workaround it by sending only stderr into /dev/null. Voila, no more patent infrigement and if the user bothers to RTFM, they can make it transparent again.