Quite right. I had an ATI All in Wonder Radeon 9700 pro for about 2 years. I've used linux off and on for the past few years, mostly off with the ATI card in there, due to poor 3d performance. Upgrade time came around, and I started shopping around for PCIe cards, and settled on the Geforce 6600GT for it's price, performance, and linux support. I could have gone with a x600 for around the same price and performance, but thanks to relatively decent linux support, I'm happy to say I run nVidia equipment in my system.
I'll admit my own knowledge of software licensing is somewhat lacking, but legally, doesn't Microsoft have the power to dictate whatever they choose through licensing agreements? The fact that the APIs are published indicates Microsoft wants to encourage development. But, if Microsoft didn't publish their API, but rather, charged for access to it, wouldn't that be within their legal bounds?
Another example: should Microsoft be required to demand a royalty from me because I used the trademarks "Windows" and "Microsoft" in my post? Certainly not.
If you somehow profited from the use of "Windows" and "Microsoft", I'm sure you'd be the recipient of some nasty letters from their legal team (unless you put the typical "Microsoft and Windows are registered trademarks of the devil himself, etc. et.c). See "Mike-Rowe-Soft" for details of someone coming too close to their trademark for comfort.
I doubt it... that cost will likely be passed on to the consumer.
Which would put third party knock-offs closer in price to the Apple sanctioned add-ons. It may not make sense to the average consumer, but it's smart business to protect a given brand. That's why people get busted for selling counterfeit watches/jeans/whatever, because selling sub-par items with a superb brand name tarnishes the reputation of that brand. By charging for usage of Apple's trademark, they're ensuring companies developing add-ons are committed to quality, and not just riding the profit wave on the iPod name.
If I took some sheets of toilet paper and a rubber bands, and marketed them as an "iPod Pouch," people will associate the cheapness with the brand, and assume because it says "iPod", it's sanctioned by Apple. That's not to say I couldn't market it as a "Generic MP3 player pouch," but like that people wouldn't automatically associate such a product with the iPod directly.
What it really boils down to is Apple is determined to protect their brand. Just like how they prevent companies from selling mac-clones (even though they did for a short time while Jobs was out), they want to prevent people from selling iPod crap, to keep up their reputation as a quality product.
Just because Microsoft's current licensing system doesn't require a fee for running on Windows right now, doesn't mean they don't have the authority. The current software market would certainly hate Microsoft if they did charge for running on Windows, but is it really that far fetched of an idea?
Based on my abstract knowledge of the GPL, doesn't it dictate the terms of how certain programs can interact with each other, particularly in a commercial context? E.g. Linksys using linux in it's routers, if their proprietary code interacts with the kernel in a certain way, doesn't it need to GPL it's own code, or else relicense the kernel under special terms?
Could Microsoft charge people for access for detailed knowledge of how to fully utilize the Windows API? Or do they already via MSDN subscriptions. I'm not much of a developer so I don't know, but it seems likely that Microsoft could do whatever they want if they so choose, but from a marketing perspective, it wouldn't make much sense.
From the documenation I've seen, and feel free to search google, Apple only makes about 10 cents for each 99 cent song sold. They're not making a mint. They're making just enough to cover bandwith and service costs. The Cash Cow for Apple has always been hardware. From premium priced computers, to the iPod itself, it's not a secret Apple's main business is the hardware itself.
So no, I can't agree with that scenario because it's based on an invalid assumption. The RIAA is taking a substantial percentage of iTunes music for themselves (for just licensing, they do nothing to distribute or provide services). And Yes, the RIAA has the authority to ask for as large a cut as they wish, and that's been covered on Slashdot before, as right or (mostly) wrong as it is (despite them already getting a rather significant cut.)
Given that Apple makes most of it's profits on the sale of the hardware, arguably because of the quality associated with said hardware, known by the trademarked name iPod, why wouldn't Apple want to collect from companies using the name and interface of it's own product?
On the one hand, people will cry out "Monopoly!" and point at Apple. Naturally, Apple's dominance in the MP3 player market makes it a likely target for such a label, and a move like this certainly helps reinforce that image.
But on the other hand, the manufacturers of the third party add-ons are making a mint off the iPod themselves. If their entire industry is based on the existance of the iPod, doesn't Apple have the authority to ask for a cut of the sales? Without the iPod, those accessories wouldn't exist. I'd see it as paying a royalty to use the iPod brand/name/whatever. Items marketed as "For use with iPod" should pay to use the name "iPod." For some reason, a set of speakers marked as "iPod Speakers" sounds better than "Speakers for use with that fruit-named company's music player."
It is packed down, but that's what makes it nice. I use it in conjunction with a relatively new pillow (which gets replaced every few years). Two new fluffy pillows elevate my head too much, so it's uncomfortable to sleep. But one fluffy pillow with the packed down pillow is just right.
Hey, I'm 21 and have been using the same pillow since I was 3 or 4. It's hard to break a pillow, so it makes sense that they can last many years. Just like with a computer- as long as it keeps doing it's job, there's no reason to replace it (Unless you want more power, but I dare you to find me a more powerful pillow than the one I've been using for 18ish years.)
Just wanted to separate the definitions of secure- like putting a deadbolt on a wooden door vs. making the door out of steel and locking on the inside. One is a simple add-on, the other is a redesign.
So Symantec/Norton make a name for themselves peddling products designed to keep people safe from security problems in Windows. Between the Customer and Microsoft, Symantec is a third party offering protection. After all these years, Microsoft decides it has the capability/desire to protect customers themselves. I can see why Symantec would be pissed, but it was they who built their house on sand. They based their business model on the combination of unwitting users and Windows flaws, so it's only natural for their business to decrease as users become more informed and Windows becomes more secure. As has been said many times in the People vs. RIAA/MPAA threads around here, The Right To Profit is not guaranteed. Symantec gambled on a product line, and thus far has done very well. The odds are changing though, if Microsoft wants to start protecting people from themselves.
Heck, I remember running Microsoft AV in Windows 3.1/Dos 6.2 days, cleaning the Form virus off various floppy disks. (Don't Copy That Floppy anyone?)
* I don't mean Windows becoming more secure in the traditional sense of locking down, though XP SP2 is a big step up, I mean the manufacturer of the product (Microsoft) providing alternate means of protection without the need for 3rd party products.
So I fall for a phishing email and enter my credit card info, bank passwords, etc. into some scam site. Said scammer proceeds to empty my bank account.
If I directly gave the scammer enough info to do such financial damage, how can the bank be held responsible? It's like if I forget my wallet on the table at some fast food restaraunt, and someone picks it up and maxes out each of my credit cards. Should the bank be held accountable that I forgot my wallet? Banks should make a better effort to confirm identities in cases of large sums of money being transfered/spent under strange circumstances, but holding them financially accountable for my own faults?
Based on commentary like that, it sounds like this country needs more MBAs with engineering degrees. The lack of respect for engineers seems to come from the middle-management/PHB's with little to no concept of how the engineering process works, from ideas, to designs, to prototypes, to testing, to re-prototyping, to re-testing, etc, to final product. Most PHBs/managers seem to love setting timetables and deadlines to keep things streamlined and organized, and make sure everything looks good on paper for the investors and higher level PHBs/CEOs/what have you. Unfortunately for them (and for engineers), good design doesn't fit well on paper, or in schedules. Thus, products are rushed, engineers are overworked, scolded for slipping behind deadlines, and chastised when the product doesn't work as advertised. The result? Upper management looks at middle/lower level management and sees the pretty tables, pie charts, and timetables, and figures they're doing a bang-up job. So who else to blame? Engineers of course! Those lazy buggers didn't work fast enough to fit within the timeline. The grunts take the heat, while the managers celebrate with dinner parties and wine. (/rant)
The most successful engineering firms I've seen are those run directly by engineers. A couple of guys start up a company a few years after graduating from a decent engineering school. They stay relatively small, but do some amazing things, free of the pressures of multiple levels of management. It's a great thing, and shows what engineers can really do when given a healthy environment to work in.
It's also comforting to think virtually everything we use today was designed by an engineer. From cars, to toasters, to computers, to refridgerators, to bathrooms. Everything.
Watering down the material won't help anything. Instead of students giving up/failing because the material is "too hard," you'll end up graduating students who lack the skills necessary to do good things(tm). Engineering is a challanging field. If students don't learn how to accept and cope with challenging problems, then they'll fail in the real world too. I'd not want to be hooked up to a life support system or drive in a car designed by a D- engineering student.
More glamorous? Tough call. On the one hand, you'll attract more potentially bright people (though many who would consider engineering as a career are already well aware of the triumphs and tribulations of such a trade). On the other hand, you may end up with the "fast and easy training = big pay check" crowd, which causes all sorts of problems (see above).
Since Symantec is best known for their Anti-Virus products, wouldn't it make sense for them to promote IE as the more "secure" browser?
I mean, it may not be secure in the traditional sense of the word, but with all the trojans/malware/ActiveX vulnerabilities out there, surely IE is the best way to "secure" profits for themselves?
Or why not reinforce the bottom and leading wings of the orbiter with some material strong enough to deflect any foam strikes, but can burn off harmlessly on re-entry, exposing the thermal tiles under?
On the contrary, I recommend Macs all the time. I'd also prefer to switch people over to linux. However, there's the unfortunate reality that most of my clients have kids who like to play games and are otherwise engrained into the Windows market. To them, word procesing == Microsoft Word, and the Internet(tm) == AOL, despite any explanation otherwise.
Others like the idea of not getting viruses and junk, but don't want to spend the money to switch their software library to mac-compatible titles, or they don't want to bother learning a new system, when they've used Windows for many years.
Before the subject gets taken out of context, let me explain. Reading the article, almost all the examples given are "my 4 year old Dell" or "my 4 year old HP." Four whole years ago, Windows ME was the most recent hunk of junk to come out of Redmond, so it wouldn't surprise me if all these repeat infections are occuring on Win9x systems. Also, machines of that era generally shipped with 64 or 128mb of RAM.
As long as the computers are running Win9x, they will undoubtedly become reinfected, as Microsoft will not update Internet Explorer with the same security level as it has with WinXP SP2. Thus, the only real way to ensure enough protection is to upgrade the operating system to the more secure XP. The upgrade itself costs on average $109, but it would run too slow to be usable on 64 or 128mb memory. So the memory should be upgraded as well, to a minimum of 256mb. At my shop, the labor to install everything would end up around $100. So you're looking at $300 to secure a 4 year old machine while maintaining usability. At that point, wouldn't it make more sense just to format the old machine, and use it as a dedicated word processor, and not let it touch the internet, while all Internet tasks are done on a new, faster, more secure system?
The article doesn't make it clear, but it seems the focus is those people still running on legacy hardware and software, accessing modern services online. Legacy software is far more easily infected than newer systems protected by an updated anti-virus and service pack 2. The article is not saying to throw out your 6 month old Dell and buy the same thing again, or even a 1 or 2 year old system.
Credentials: I've worked in a computer shop cleaning viruses and spyware for the past 4 years. Since the introduction of XP SP2, I've seen a dramatic decrease in repeat customers with re-infections once a machine is properly cleaned, updated, and patched. (With the exception of those who's kids download Kazaa as soon as they get the machine home, despite numerous warnings).
'In 1-800 Contacts's lawsuit against adware provider WhenU.com, the appeals court likened WhenU's ads to retail stores that place generic competitors next to brand-name products.'
That's bull. Ads for a competitor produced by a 3rd party on any site is more like walking into a Burger King and seeing McDonalds ads plastered all over. In the physical world, managers have the power to deny any 3rd party advertising on their premesis, and can remove any posters/flyers/whatever not explicitly approved from their property. Why is cyberspace any different? WhenU is a 3rd party, hired by a competitor to produce advertising when users enter a target site. Said site has no defense, or no method of blocking/taking down the ads, as the pop-ups are generated client side. How does that make any sort of logical sense- that anyone can advertise whatever they want as a pop-up on any given site?
Generally, when I visit a particular company's website, I'm interested in that company's products, not alternatives or knock-offs. If I were looking for "similar" products, I'd hit a search engine and search for "generic product X" rather than "brand name product X."
Slashdot Mirror
Quite right. I had an ATI All in Wonder Radeon 9700 pro for about 2 years. I've used linux off and on for the past few years, mostly off with the ATI card in there, due to poor 3d performance. Upgrade time came around, and I started shopping around for PCIe cards, and settled on the Geforce 6600GT for it's price, performance, and linux support. I could have gone with a x600 for around the same price and performance, but thanks to relatively decent linux support, I'm happy to say I run nVidia equipment in my system.
I'll admit my own knowledge of software licensing is somewhat lacking, but legally, doesn't Microsoft have the power to dictate whatever they choose through licensing agreements? The fact that the APIs are published indicates Microsoft wants to encourage development. But, if Microsoft didn't publish their API, but rather, charged for access to it, wouldn't that be within their legal bounds?
Another example: should Microsoft be required to demand a royalty from me because I used the trademarks "Windows" and "Microsoft" in my post? Certainly not.
If you somehow profited from the use of "Windows" and "Microsoft", I'm sure you'd be the recipient of some nasty letters from their legal team (unless you put the typical "Microsoft and Windows are registered trademarks of the devil himself, etc. et.c). See "Mike-Rowe-Soft" for details of someone coming too close to their trademark for comfort.
I doubt it... that cost will likely be passed on to the consumer.
Which would put third party knock-offs closer in price to the Apple sanctioned add-ons. It may not make sense to the average consumer, but it's smart business to protect a given brand. That's why people get busted for selling counterfeit watches/jeans/whatever, because selling sub-par items with a superb brand name tarnishes the reputation of that brand. By charging for usage of Apple's trademark, they're ensuring companies developing add-ons are committed to quality, and not just riding the profit wave on the iPod name.
If I took some sheets of toilet paper and a rubber bands, and marketed them as an "iPod Pouch," people will associate the cheapness with the brand, and assume because it says "iPod", it's sanctioned by Apple. That's not to say I couldn't market it as a "Generic MP3 player pouch," but like that people wouldn't automatically associate such a product with the iPod directly.
What it really boils down to is Apple is determined to protect their brand. Just like how they prevent companies from selling mac-clones (even though they did for a short time while Jobs was out), they want to prevent people from selling iPod crap, to keep up their reputation as a quality product.
Just because Microsoft's current licensing system doesn't require a fee for running on Windows right now, doesn't mean they don't have the authority. The current software market would certainly hate Microsoft if they did charge for running on Windows, but is it really that far fetched of an idea?
Based on my abstract knowledge of the GPL, doesn't it dictate the terms of how certain programs can interact with each other, particularly in a commercial context? E.g. Linksys using linux in it's routers, if their proprietary code interacts with the kernel in a certain way, doesn't it need to GPL it's own code, or else relicense the kernel under special terms?
Could Microsoft charge people for access for detailed knowledge of how to fully utilize the Windows API? Or do they already via MSDN subscriptions. I'm not much of a developer so I don't know, but it seems likely that Microsoft could do whatever they want if they so choose, but from a marketing perspective, it wouldn't make much sense.
From the documenation I've seen, and feel free to search google, Apple only makes about 10 cents for each 99 cent song sold. They're not making a mint. They're making just enough to cover bandwith and service costs. The Cash Cow for Apple has always been hardware. From premium priced computers, to the iPod itself, it's not a secret Apple's main business is the hardware itself.
So no, I can't agree with that scenario because it's based on an invalid assumption. The RIAA is taking a substantial percentage of iTunes music for themselves (for just licensing, they do nothing to distribute or provide services). And Yes, the RIAA has the authority to ask for as large a cut as they wish, and that's been covered on Slashdot before, as right or (mostly) wrong as it is (despite them already getting a rather significant cut.)
Given that Apple makes most of it's profits on the sale of the hardware, arguably because of the quality associated with said hardware, known by the trademarked name iPod, why wouldn't Apple want to collect from companies using the name and interface of it's own product?
I can see this going two ways.
On the one hand, people will cry out "Monopoly!" and point at Apple. Naturally, Apple's dominance in the MP3 player market makes it a likely target for such a label, and a move like this certainly helps reinforce that image.
But on the other hand, the manufacturers of the third party add-ons are making a mint off the iPod themselves. If their entire industry is based on the existance of the iPod, doesn't Apple have the authority to ask for a cut of the sales? Without the iPod, those accessories wouldn't exist. I'd see it as paying a royalty to use the iPod brand/name/whatever. Items marketed as "For use with iPod" should pay to use the name "iPod." For some reason, a set of speakers marked as "iPod Speakers" sounds better than "Speakers for use with that fruit-named company's music player."
Actually, there are a few on it. That's how I'm reminded I've had the pillow for that long.
It is packed down, but that's what makes it nice. I use it in conjunction with a relatively new pillow (which gets replaced every few years). Two new fluffy pillows elevate my head too much, so it's uncomfortable to sleep. But one fluffy pillow with the packed down pillow is just right.
Hey, I'm 21 and have been using the same pillow since I was 3 or 4. It's hard to break a pillow, so it makes sense that they can last many years. Just like with a computer- as long as it keeps doing it's job, there's no reason to replace it (Unless you want more power, but I dare you to find me a more powerful pillow than the one I've been using for 18ish years.)
Just wanted to separate the definitions of secure- like putting a deadbolt on a wooden door vs. making the door out of steel and locking on the inside. One is a simple add-on, the other is a redesign.
So Symantec/Norton make a name for themselves peddling products designed to keep people safe from security problems in Windows. Between the Customer and Microsoft, Symantec is a third party offering protection. After all these years, Microsoft decides it has the capability/desire to protect customers themselves. I can see why Symantec would be pissed, but it was they who built their house on sand. They based their business model on the combination of unwitting users and Windows flaws, so it's only natural for their business to decrease as users become more informed and Windows becomes more secure. As has been said many times in the People vs. RIAA/MPAA threads around here, The Right To Profit is not guaranteed. Symantec gambled on a product line, and thus far has done very well. The odds are changing though, if Microsoft wants to start protecting people from themselves.
Heck, I remember running Microsoft AV in Windows 3.1/Dos 6.2 days, cleaning the Form virus off various floppy disks. (Don't Copy That Floppy anyone?)
* I don't mean Windows becoming more secure in the traditional sense of locking down, though XP SP2 is a big step up, I mean the manufacturer of the product (Microsoft) providing alternate means of protection without the need for 3rd party products.
So I fall for a phishing email and enter my credit card info, bank passwords, etc. into some scam site. Said scammer proceeds to empty my bank account.
If I directly gave the scammer enough info to do such financial damage, how can the bank be held responsible? It's like if I forget my wallet on the table at some fast food restaraunt, and someone picks it up and maxes out each of my credit cards. Should the bank be held accountable that I forgot my wallet? Banks should make a better effort to confirm identities in cases of large sums of money being transfered/spent under strange circumstances, but holding them financially accountable for my own faults?
Let's do the time warp again.
(Sorry, I had to.)
Based on commentary like that, it sounds like this country needs more MBAs with engineering degrees. The lack of respect for engineers seems to come from the middle-management/PHB's with little to no concept of how the engineering process works, from ideas, to designs, to prototypes, to testing, to re-prototyping, to re-testing, etc, to final product. Most PHBs/managers seem to love setting timetables and deadlines to keep things streamlined and organized, and make sure everything looks good on paper for the investors and higher level PHBs/CEOs/what have you. Unfortunately for them (and for engineers), good design doesn't fit well on paper, or in schedules. Thus, products are rushed, engineers are overworked, scolded for slipping behind deadlines, and chastised when the product doesn't work as advertised. The result? Upper management looks at middle/lower level management and sees the pretty tables, pie charts, and timetables, and figures they're doing a bang-up job. So who else to blame? Engineers of course! Those lazy buggers didn't work fast enough to fit within the timeline. The grunts take the heat, while the managers celebrate with dinner parties and wine. (/rant)
The most successful engineering firms I've seen are those run directly by engineers. A couple of guys start up a company a few years after graduating from a decent engineering school. They stay relatively small, but do some amazing things, free of the pressures of multiple levels of management. It's a great thing, and shows what engineers can really do when given a healthy environment to work in.
It's also comforting to think virtually everything we use today was designed by an engineer. From cars, to toasters, to computers, to refridgerators, to bathrooms. Everything.
Easier? Hell no.
Watering down the material won't help anything. Instead of students giving up/failing because the material is "too hard," you'll end up graduating students who lack the skills necessary to do good things(tm). Engineering is a challanging field. If students don't learn how to accept and cope with challenging problems, then they'll fail in the real world too. I'd not want to be hooked up to a life support system or drive in a car designed by a D- engineering student.
More glamorous? Tough call. On the one hand, you'll attract more potentially bright people (though many who would consider engineering as a career are already well aware of the triumphs and tribulations of such a trade). On the other hand, you may end up with the "fast and easy training = big pay check" crowd, which causes all sorts of problems (see above).
Come on, they put the Thunderbirds in front of Futurama... That's just wrong.
Since Symantec is best known for their Anti-Virus products, wouldn't it make sense for them to promote IE as the more "secure" browser?
I mean, it may not be secure in the traditional sense of the word, but with all the trojans/malware/ActiveX vulnerabilities out there, surely IE is the best way to "secure" profits for themselves?
Remember- Hardware, not software will be free."
Eh, 640 years ought to be enough for anybody.
Or why not reinforce the bottom and leading wings of the orbiter with some material strong enough to deflect any foam strikes, but can burn off harmlessly on re-entry, exposing the thermal tiles under?
On the contrary, I recommend Macs all the time. I'd also prefer to switch people over to linux. However, there's the unfortunate reality that most of my clients have kids who like to play games and are otherwise engrained into the Windows market. To them, word procesing == Microsoft Word, and the Internet(tm) == AOL, despite any explanation otherwise.
Others like the idea of not getting viruses and junk, but don't want to spend the money to switch their software library to mac-compatible titles, or they don't want to bother learning a new system, when they've used Windows for many years.
Before the subject gets taken out of context, let me explain. Reading the article, almost all the examples given are "my 4 year old Dell" or "my 4 year old HP." Four whole years ago, Windows ME was the most recent hunk of junk to come out of Redmond, so it wouldn't surprise me if all these repeat infections are occuring on Win9x systems. Also, machines of that era generally shipped with 64 or 128mb of RAM.
As long as the computers are running Win9x, they will undoubtedly become reinfected, as Microsoft will not update Internet Explorer with the same security level as it has with WinXP SP2. Thus, the only real way to ensure enough protection is to upgrade the operating system to the more secure XP. The upgrade itself costs on average $109, but it would run too slow to be usable on 64 or 128mb memory. So the memory should be upgraded as well, to a minimum of 256mb. At my shop, the labor to install everything would end up around $100. So you're looking at $300 to secure a 4 year old machine while maintaining usability. At that point, wouldn't it make more sense just to format the old machine, and use it as a dedicated word processor, and not let it touch the internet, while all Internet tasks are done on a new, faster, more secure system?
The article doesn't make it clear, but it seems the focus is those people still running on legacy hardware and software, accessing modern services online. Legacy software is far more easily infected than newer systems protected by an updated anti-virus and service pack 2. The article is not saying to throw out your 6 month old Dell and buy the same thing again, or even a 1 or 2 year old system.
Credentials: I've worked in a computer shop cleaning viruses and spyware for the past 4 years. Since the introduction of XP SP2, I've seen a dramatic decrease in repeat customers with re-infections once a machine is properly cleaned, updated, and patched. (With the exception of those who's kids download Kazaa as soon as they get the machine home, despite numerous warnings).
Lawyer: Mr. Nahasapeemapetilon, have you ever forgotten anything?
Apu: No. In fact, I can recite pi to 50,000 places. The last digit is 1.
Homer: Mmmm.... Pi.
'In 1-800 Contacts's lawsuit against adware provider WhenU.com, the appeals court likened WhenU's ads to retail stores that place generic competitors next to brand-name products.'
That's bull. Ads for a competitor produced by a 3rd party on any site is more like walking into a Burger King and seeing McDonalds ads plastered all over. In the physical world, managers have the power to deny any 3rd party advertising on their premesis, and can remove any posters/flyers/whatever not explicitly approved from their property. Why is cyberspace any different? WhenU is a 3rd party, hired by a competitor to produce advertising when users enter a target site. Said site has no defense, or no method of blocking/taking down the ads, as the pop-ups are generated client side. How does that make any sort of logical sense- that anyone can advertise whatever they want as a pop-up on any given site?
Generally, when I visit a particular company's website, I'm interested in that company's products, not alternatives or knock-offs. If I were looking for "similar" products, I'd hit a search engine and search for "generic product X" rather than "brand name product X."
"...the company cherished for it's warm human point of view and high quality software..."
I think you misspelled "crap."
It's a common typo, they keys are like, right next to each other.
(with apologies to bash)