These laws are absolutely counter productive and will cause widespread costs amoung consumers for concentrated benefits amoung competetitors.
As opposed to the business practices of convicted violators of these anti-trust laws , where said practices are explicitly destroying competition for no other reason than "we're bigger than you , so curl up and die"?
Don't get me wrong, I am 100% for competition in business. Compete on price, compete on quality, compete on stability, compete on performance or even compete on availability (ie widespread platform support).
What I absolutely hate is when your idea of competition is to tell your customer-in-common "if you use *any* competing products we're going to triple your price to buy/use our products". (eg Microsoft and OEMs wanting to ship PCs with any Non-MS Windows OS)
That's not "running a business", that's extortion, racketeering and various other ways of saying "we're the biggest thing on the market so we're going to screw the economy for our own benefit".
history has shown that it has produced
reduced competition
increased prices
reduced quality
And you're sitting there trying to tell people that "it's a good thing, really".
Forget the economics class, take a few LAW classes.
Any company which leverages its (effective) monopoly in one area to further its business aims in other areas is violating many and various US anti-trust laws.
In the US Microsoft was convicted under those laws, but when it came to "remedies" they pleaded "screw with us and we'll pound your economy into smithereens" at which point the government showed how much of a purebred capitalist whore it really is.
At least in the EU they're *trying* to apply something even vaguely approaching punishment for the crimes which have been committed and which continue to be committed.
I for one look forward to seeing if Microsoft is forced to sell the "stripped down OS" that Bill Gates and other "expert witnesses" in Microsoft swore blind could not be produced/delivered without fatally destroying the entire OS.
If you have such a short memory that you don't remember what I'm referring to, google for articles describing the shennanigans at the most Microsoft AntiTrust hearings.
EU to Microsoft: We hereby require you to prove once and for all that you undeniably committed perjury when you claimed in court at the recent US anti-trust hearings that a stripped down Microsoft OS could not be produced.
It all depends, if you consider the blanket deployment of a single solution without considering for *how appropriate* that solution is for the many and various expected uses to be "inappropriate" then YES they've been inappropriately using Windows.
All they've said (and this now goes for many Australian Government uses, now) is that OpenSource solutions will now be considered on a case-by-case basis, whereas previously it was "roll out this solution everywhere, without considering other options" (mainly due to Government bulk-buying of off-the-shelf commercial solutions, mostly due to HEAVY lobbying/discounting/campaign contributions?).
Yes, it's true, The Australian Government has made a commitment to officially (and seriously? one hopes) consider the use of OpenSource as opposed to (as previously) considering only mass-market commercial solutions.
This project has less than zero to do with "saving the earth from asteriods" and more than 95% to do with terraforming Mars.
Why? You ask. Well think about this...
the time when this is needed to avert a worldwide catastrophy is FAR TOO LATE to be doing your first real live test
the asteroids have to go *somewhere* so why not somewhere useful
For those of you who failed basic math, 1+1=2 means Trial Runs of "MADMEN" Asteroid Deflections by slamdunking them into Mars. While they're at it, some of these "asteriods" in the test might just as well be Comets (ie slamdunked into Mars for the water).
A key provision of the law bars the government from using the vulnerability information in any enforcement action against the company, or from using it as the basis for proposing new legislation or regulations on industry.
Looks like Bill Gates just bought himself a get-out-of-jail-free card.
It costs them to make, they charge ad space in paper to make a profit. Why should on-line be any different?
For some reason many of us are forgeeint one important thing. With Most things these days, you're BOTH paying for the product, AND having to live with advertisements. Then they claim the advertising keeps costs down, but they continually post higher fees and higher profits.
WOuld you buy a newspaper which FORCED you to eyeball a full page front page ad for an entire 30 seconds *every time you picked it up* before letting you flick through to that article on page nine? Hell NO - and why should online be any different? (before you mod me down - this isn't a TROLL, it's a reference to the intrusive ad campaigns of CNET and suchlike , also the proposed "interstitial" advertising that's been talked about recently)
Must be value for money (seriously, it's worth saying several times)
Anyone surreptitionsly following my surfing habits will see a very clear pattern emerging
sites with advertising filtered by my ad/popup blocker get return visits (assuming they have good content)
sites which successfully bypass my filters never see me again
sites which require me to register never see me again (unless I can screw their database, like NYTimes)
Sites with stuff I *really* want that I can't get elsewhere for free (or that provide significant value *over* free), I subscribe to (eg FilePlanet, paid email service, etc)
It's surprising how difficult online content providers find understanding the most basic of facts. PISS of your customers and they won't return. The ever-more-annoying and in-your-face Advertising model just doesn't work. (Phear My Filters)
I'm not unreasonable, I'd happily pay fair-value for good content, all I ask in return is
MicroPayments
Security
Privacy
Zero advertising
Value For Money
Value For Money
Value For Money (seriously, it's worth asking for several times, they're NOT GETTING THE MESSAGE)
An example given earlier of $5 for an article isn't value for money, it's a ripoff. Even if it is "archived". Geez man, everyone who *really wanted* your article got it when it was current, additional "sales" now would have to be pure profit - your entire DeadTrees publication costs what , $5.75 a week (eg NYTimes DeadTrees Edition)? And you wanna charge me $5 an article, electronic delivery?
How do companies who list "customer goodwill" as a line item on their company valuations balance that against actively screwing their customers (privacy violations, information-highway-robbery) and doing their best to just plain piss them off (guerilla advertising campaigns) in the online world?
Ah the joy of being narrow-minded. I've already got MY needs met, screw the rest of you.
Read the article, it (for example) talks about using WUSB to connect your HomeTheater setup to your PC for streaming HDTV. Personally I'd prefer to keep my PC in one room and my HT setup in another (for acoustics if nothing else) in which case I'd much rather not have to run cables between the two.
Clearly they're positioning this for the in home digital network. Digital Convergence While you *can* sortof achieve these things with WiFi and IP Streaming, the bottom line is that neither WiFi nor IP Addresses are trivial enough for Grandma to connect hreself.
They envision a world where everyone has a computer (for internet and email) and they want to provide "consumer level" (ie plug it in and it just works) connectivity to it for "just about any computing device in the home".
PLUS this spec talks about device-to-device (USB doesn't do this now?) so think along the lines of Digital Camera-to-Television for viewing Photos (or even videos).
A high-bandwidth plug-and-play connectivity spec without wires opens up a Whole World of opportunity. Suddenly your computer in the study becomes a back-end server to the entire home, display on my HomeTheater Widescreen TV, stream HDTV from my computer (recorded from my DTV STB), pull up photos from my camera onto the TV, pick one and then email it to someone. and none of these devices are wired to each other. When I have guests around, all they see is "a normal living room" big TV, nice speakers and a digital camera on the coffee table. A complete lack of messy wires everywhere (without having to wire everything into the walls - which is generally not an option if you're renting). And the best thing (from a business perspective) is that if you have enough 'tech skills' to drive AOL then you can have a digitally-converged household like this (ie just about anyone is a potential customer, the only limit is disposable income - and we're taoking 'consumer level' here, so it's not big bux).
Develop, publish and promote the preferred short-range wireless specification for connecting mobile products.
And if you read this "introduction" it's CLEARLY positioning WUSB for things like in-the-home high-capacity connectivity for devices where you're rather not have wires (eg HomeTheater, they specifically talk about bandwidth consumption of HDTV streams etc).
target 480Mbps (ie USB2) expect to hit 1Gbps at some point
Looks like they're spec'ing minimal "basic security" for the connection itself, as they go on to say "Higher levels of security involving encryption should be implemented at the application level", implying that encryption will not be part of the WUSB spec itself.
"For example, typical PDAs use 250-400 mW without a radio connection, while typical cellular phones use 200 mW-300 mW with the primary WAN radio. Adding a WUSB radio should not increase power requirements any more than existing wireless technologies already employed today. "
"connectivity at less than 10 meters"
Cost is a result of production, not (necessarily) something you can just spec in the design. Although they do say "Low-cost implementation of WUSB will also be important to the successful integration of the technology. Implementation will follow the wired USB connectivity models as closely as possible to reduce development time and to preserve the low-cost, easy-to-use model, which has become pervasive in the PC industry. "
Interestingly enough, the car was one of them fancy "powered by Microsoft Windows" BMWs.
Of course, BMW denied that the fault lay with the Microsoft software
"BMW has told CNETAsia that an electronic fault caused the problem, rather than a system crash of the car's Windows-based central computer, as other reports have speculated."
Then again, from a publicity standpoint it's obviously preferable to claim "it was a minor electronics glitch, a freak occurrence, sorry, we'll fix it" as opposed to "Stupid Microsoft Software - recall ALL the cars, scrap the project".
The masters at this right now are Apple, Canon and Sony, and yes, Microsoft.
Odd that you should mention those names in the same sentance.
Memories of SesameStreet and "one of these things is not like the other".
Can you guess which is the odd man out?
Here's a small hint:
three of these companies are strong innovators, who care enough to produce very polished/well engineered products
One of them owes its current success to (a) holding a Virtual Monopoly (b) predatory business practices (b) throwing megabux at politicians and government lobbyinsts
Slashdot Mirror
As opposed to the business practices of convicted violators of these anti-trust laws , where said practices are explicitly destroying competition for no other reason than "we're bigger than you , so curl up and die"?
Don't get me wrong, I am 100% for competition in business. Compete on price, compete on quality, compete on stability, compete on performance or even compete on availability (ie widespread platform support).
What I absolutely hate is when your idea of competition is to tell your customer-in-common "if you use *any* competing products we're going to triple your price to buy/use our products". (eg Microsoft and OEMs wanting to ship PCs with any Non-MS Windows OS)
That's not "running a business", that's extortion, racketeering and various other ways of saying "we're the biggest thing on the market so we're going to screw the economy for our own benefit".
history has shown that it has produced
- reduced competition
- increased prices
- reduced quality
And you're sitting there trying to tell people that "it's a good thing, really".Forget the economics class, take a few LAW classes.
Any company which leverages its (effective) monopoly in one area to further its business aims in other areas is violating many and various US anti-trust laws.
In the US Microsoft was convicted under those laws, but when it came to "remedies" they pleaded "screw with us and we'll pound your economy into smithereens" at which point the government showed how much of a purebred capitalist whore it really is.
At least in the EU they're *trying* to apply something even vaguely approaching punishment for the crimes which have been committed and which continue to be committed.
I for one look forward to seeing if Microsoft is forced to sell the "stripped down OS" that Bill Gates and other "expert witnesses" in Microsoft swore blind could not be produced/delivered without fatally destroying the entire OS.
If you have such a short memory that you don't remember what I'm referring to, google for articles describing the shennanigans at the most Microsoft AntiTrust hearings.
EU to Microsoft: We hereby require you to prove once and for all that you undeniably committed perjury when you claimed in court at the recent US anti-trust hearings that a stripped down Microsoft OS could not be produced.
It all depends, if you consider the blanket deployment of a single solution without considering for *how appropriate* that solution is for the many and various expected uses to be "inappropriate" then YES they've been inappropriately using Windows.
All they've said (and this now goes for many Australian Government uses, now) is that OpenSource solutions will now be considered on a case-by-case basis, whereas previously it was "roll out this solution everywhere, without considering other options" (mainly due to Government bulk-buying of off-the-shelf commercial solutions, mostly due to HEAVY lobbying/discounting/campaign contributions?).
Yes, it's true, The Australian Government has made a commitment to officially (and seriously? one hopes) consider the use of OpenSource as opposed to (as previously) considering only mass-market commercial solutions.
Why? You ask. Well think about this...
- the time when this is needed to avert a worldwide catastrophy is FAR TOO LATE to be doing your first real live test
- the asteroids have to go *somewhere* so why not somewhere useful
For those of you who failed basic math, 1+1=2 means Trial Runs of "MADMEN" Asteroid Deflections by slamdunking them into Mars. While they're at it, some of these "asteriods" in the test might just as well be Comets (ie slamdunked into Mars for the water).A good writer would have said
MADMEN Defend Earth from Asteroids
Making A Good Headline wins out over Proper Grammar and Syntax *every time*.
At last, something that qualifies for the appelation "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters".
Twice over, even.
I'm still a lowly chicken soup machine technician
I think I speak for everyone when I say that we'd ALL be MUCH happier if you were a Nutrimatic Technician.
No, but maybe we can finally resolve your "penis" with this lens.
Bad science there duude, you're already assuming it exists before having found it.
As truly sung by The Rolling Stones.
.... satisfaction.
Ah, cain't get no
WHat? You mean like this online dictionary?
Hey, can you tell me what an *incorrect opinion* is?
You deserve better than -4 Troll
Damn I'm good.
A key provision of the law bars the government from using the vulnerability information in any enforcement action against the company, or from using it as the basis for proposing new legislation or regulations on industry.
Looks like Bill Gates just bought himself a get-out-of-jail-free card.
It costs them to make, they charge ad space in paper to make a profit. Why should on-line be any different?
For some reason many of us are forgeeint one important thing. With Most things these days, you're BOTH paying for the product, AND having to live with advertisements. Then they claim the advertising keeps costs down, but they continually post higher fees and higher profits.
WOuld you buy a newspaper which FORCED you to eyeball a full page front page ad for an entire 30 seconds *every time you picked it up* before letting you flick through to that article on page nine? Hell NO - and why should online be any different? (before you mod me down - this isn't a TROLL, it's a reference to the intrusive ad campaigns of CNET and suchlike , also the proposed "interstitial" advertising that's been talked about recently)
It costs them to make, they charge ad space in paper to make a profit. Why should on-line be any different?
A hypothetical example.
- Must be value for money
- must not include advertising
- must not ever infringe on my privacy
- Must be value for money (seriously, it's worth saying several times)
Anyone surreptitionsly following my surfing habits will see a very clear pattern emerging- sites with advertising filtered by my ad/popup blocker get return visits (assuming they have good content)
- sites which successfully bypass my filters never see me again
- sites which require me to register never see me again (unless I can screw their database, like NYTimes)
- Sites with stuff I *really* want that I can't get elsewhere for free (or that provide significant value *over* free), I subscribe to (eg FilePlanet, paid email service, etc)
It's surprising how difficult online content providers find understanding the most basic of facts. PISS of your customers and they won't return. The ever-more-annoying and in-your-face Advertising model just doesn't work. (Phear My Filters)I'm not unreasonable, I'd happily pay fair-value for good content, all I ask in return is
- MicroPayments
- Security
- Privacy
- Zero advertising
- Value For Money
- Value For Money
- Value For Money (seriously, it's worth asking for several times, they're NOT GETTING THE MESSAGE)
An example given earlier of $5 for an article isn't value for money, it's a ripoff. Even if it is "archived". Geez man, everyone who *really wanted* your article got it when it was current, additional "sales" now would have to be pure profit - your entire DeadTrees publication costs what , $5.75 a week (eg NYTimes DeadTrees Edition)? And you wanna charge me $5 an article, electronic delivery?How do companies who list "customer goodwill" as a line item on their company valuations balance that against actively screwing their customers (privacy violations, information-highway-robbery) and doing their best to just plain piss them off (guerilla advertising campaigns) in the online world?
RTFA, essentially they say "no encryption in the connectivity spec, feel free to add it at the application layer if you need it".
Ah the joy of being narrow-minded. I've already got MY needs met, screw the rest of you.
Read the article, it (for example) talks about using WUSB to connect your HomeTheater setup to your PC for streaming HDTV. Personally I'd prefer to keep my PC in one room and my HT setup in another (for acoustics if nothing else) in which case I'd much rather not have to run cables between the two.
Clearly they're positioning this for the in home digital network. Digital Convergence While you *can* sortof achieve these things with WiFi and IP Streaming, the bottom line is that neither WiFi nor IP Addresses are trivial enough for Grandma to connect hreself.
They envision a world where everyone has a computer (for internet and email) and they want to provide "consumer level" (ie plug it in and it just works) connectivity to it for "just about any computing device in the home".
PLUS this spec talks about device-to-device (USB doesn't do this now?) so think along the lines of Digital Camera-to-Television for viewing Photos (or even videos).
A high-bandwidth plug-and-play connectivity spec without wires opens up a Whole World of opportunity. Suddenly your computer in the study becomes a back-end server to the entire home, display on my HomeTheater Widescreen TV, stream HDTV from my computer (recorded from my DTV STB), pull up photos from my camera onto the TV, pick one and then email it to someone. and none of these devices are wired to each other. When I have guests around, all they see is "a normal living room" big TV, nice speakers and a digital camera on the coffee table. A complete lack of messy wires everywhere (without having to wire everything into the walls - which is generally not an option if you're renting). And the best thing (from a business perspective) is that if you have enough 'tech skills' to drive AOL then you can have a digitally-converged household like this (ie just about anyone is a potential customer, the only limit is disposable income - and we're taoking 'consumer level' here, so it's not big bux).
Develop, publish and promote the preferred short-range wireless specification for connecting mobile products.
And if you read this "introduction" it's CLEARLY positioning WUSB for things like in-the-home high-capacity connectivity for devices where you're rather not have wires (eg HomeTheater, they specifically talk about bandwidth consumption of HDTV streams etc).
Very muchly *not* what BlueTooth is aimed at.
- doesn't even approach 480Mbps
- doesn't connect devices, it connects networks (or, devices with a network stack)
And that's without even beginning to seriously look for reasons why 802.11(something something) is not applicable in this instance.Interestingly enough, the car was one of them fancy "powered by Microsoft Windows" BMWs.
Of course, BMW denied that the fault lay with the Microsoft software
"BMW has told CNETAsia that an electronic fault caused the problem, rather than a system crash of the car's Windows-based central computer, as other reports have speculated."
Then again, from a publicity standpoint it's obviously preferable to claim "it was a minor electronics glitch, a freak occurrence, sorry, we'll fix it" as opposed to "Stupid Microsoft Software - recall ALL the cars, scrap the project".
What lesson? Slashdoters have conclusively proven that Manual Overrides neither grow hair on your palms nor do they make you go blind.
MODerators: if you don't get the joke then you never read Cryptognomicon - what kind of geek *are* you?
Odd that you should mention those names in the same sentance.
Memories of SesameStreet and "one of these things is not like the other".
Can you guess which is the odd man out?
Here's a small hint:
Or their ProSumer version the DigitalRebel (EOS 300D) for (drumroll) ~$900.
Uses all the Canon Lenses and flashes, just some features 'dumbed down' slightly.