Atheists (note the latin form of the word implies opposit of theist IE the negative, not the absense of ie nullification): these believe that deities do not exist
You have your languages mixed up. The word is Greek in origin. theos is Greek for 'god'. The 'a' is the alpha privativum, expressing 'want' or 'absence', like Latin in-. See your Liddel & Scott.
You miss-typed one whois address. It's not the Canadians, its the Russians.
whois 217.107.162.252 % This is the RIPE Whois server. % The objects are in RPSL format. % % Rights restricted by copyright. % See http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/db/copyri ght.html
inetnum: 217.107.162.0 - 217.107.162.255 netname: OGBUS-NETWORK descr: Oil and Gas Business country: RU admin-c: MA2574-RIPE tech-c: MA2574-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PA notify: avd@ogbus.com notify: registry@rt.ru mnt-by: AS8342-MNT changed: rus@rt.ru 20020121 changed: luda@rt.ru 20031010 changed: luda@rt.ru 20031016 source: RIPE
Net energy is a different concept. It is the ratio of the amount of energy produced over the life-time of a plant divided by all of the energy consumed in mining, refining, transportation and disposal of fuel plus all of the energy consumed in construction and maintenance of the nuclear plant (including manufacturing and transport of all materials used in the plant). That is a very different accounting than just looking at the reactions. The net energy of oil is higher because we don't have to put nearly as much energy into the system before we get something out. In the early days of the oil industry, the energy yield was as high as 100.
Malthus may have been proven wrong in the short run (last few centuries), but there is plenty of time in the long term for him to be proven right.
My main point was about an economic fallacy, that the market will always provide pretty much anything we want. That is not so. What it will do is allocate efficiently (at least in theory) what we can produce using what we do have (not what we wish we had).
As for nuclear energy (actually for any energy source) what counts is energy yield (net energy) and that is far less than what you might expect if you only look at the energy density of the source. It has been estimated that conventional light-water reactors have a energy yield of only 4 to 4.5 (ODUM, 1996). That's not bad but less than oil at 8 to 10. We can probably do better, but not by orders of magnitude. If we stick to uranium, it has been estimated that the US has enough to fuel its current reactors for about 40 years. That's not anywhere enough to use uranium to produce subsitutes for declining oil and gas sources. Perhaps we can do better using breeder reactors, but breeder reactors are much more difficult to design and operate have generally been abandonded.
This form of economic optimisim is misleading. While market mechanism may provide incentives for change and lead to some form of optimal use of what is avaliable, they can't create something that just doesn't exit.
It's entirely possible that we could run out of sufficient oil to keep our current system running before we can develop the technology to support an alternative soucre. Of all the alternatives currently known, only nuclear fusion has the potential to allow us to continue the kind of enegy expenditure we currently enjoy but its still decades away (if ever) from any practical use. None of the other alternatives, oil sands, oil shales, uranium based fission plants, coal or renewables can meet demand.
Market mechanisims can't guarantee that kind of physical economy we currently enjoy can be sustained. At best, they will goad us to adapt and make the best use of what resources remain to us in a what might be a very different future.
While there may be a huge amount of oil potentially avaliable in tar sands, that doesn't mean that we'll ever be able to extract all it for use.
The Syncrude plant in Alberta currently requires the equivalent of 2 barrels of oil as input for every 3 barrels produced (using natural gas to fire the hot water extraction process). It also requires 2.5 barrels of water for every barrel produced. This is for the most accessable, strip mined sands. Production is no longer viable when energy inputs exceed energy produced and is limited by available of water supplies. These plants are also very expensive. The next-generation Syncrude plant is alreay several billion dollars over budget and still unfinished.
The system you've described (scanned paper) is exactly the kind of system used in recent municipal elections here in Toronto.
The ballot has the candidates' names listed with broken arrows pointing to them. To vote, you fill in the arrow of your choice. The ballot is placed in a folder that covers your vote, but leaves the top edge free. The poll clerk (under your supervision) places the folder on the scanner, face down, and the scanner pulls the ballot from the folder, scans it and drops it into the ballot box. Simple.
I would have thought that banks would have taken every precaution necessary to isolate their ATMs from Internet based attacks, but it seems that it is not so. Dedicated lines or not, they are still vulnerable.
Oh, I don't think it will be that simple.
The members of any jury will more than likely be forced to learn far more about backup schedules, verifcation of tapes, source-code control systems and the like than they would ever want to know about. Do really think IBM's lawyers will let SCO get away with the simple "here's two block of similar code - they must have stolen it" trick without raising a single question in cross-examination? SCO will have to provide excruciatingly detailed histories for every line of code they show (just for starters).
IIRC OSF was not open source. It was a open standard/closed source project sponsored primarily by IBM and DEC. They were the ones attempting to "divide and conquer" the emerging UNIX market, not SUN. That was back when there were 80 plus UNIX system vendors, IBM was the 'great satan' and Microsoft was irrelevant.
If you're just looking for a general workstation, the answer is there isn't much of a point.
What you're missing is that workstations haven't been Sun's main line of business for many years. They sell servers for corporate functions, like running very large Oracle databases for transaction processing. Their main selling point isn't raw speed, or Solaris or any other single factor. Like Apple in the desktop world, they focus on integration. They try to make everything work together well. Even if they don't always succeed at this, if you buy from Sun you generally get good, stable, reliable and ultimately cost-effective solution for general business processing.
Actually, I think that Gates and MS very much do get this and they want very much to dominate internal corporate development as they do the retail space. Of course, they have made progress in this area -- they own the corporate desktop, office tools and there are probably millions of little VB systems all over the world -- but they also want the middle and upper tiers. That puts them squarely up against IBM.
This may ultimately be the deciding factor in the OSS IP wars. As a poster notes below, "IBM dosen't love Linux", but I'm certain they like the opening it has given to launch a counter-attack against MS after the beating they took in the Widows vs OS/2 war. What's more important, Linux stands as a defensive wall barring MS from moving into the middle tier of large scale Web/DB application servicing and ultimately protects the mainframe bastion.
Without the self-interested support of IBM and possibly other major corporations, Linux would be in a precarious position in the USA. There is an expression I've heard the suits use in situations like this: "take the candy from the baby". Since the OSS community doesn't have the legal-financial resources to build and defend patent portfolios it makes it all to easy for corportations to consider stealing (by 'legal' means) the candy
Hardball? Yes it certainly is. But I don't buy the rest of your arguments.
SCO has a small war chest from the Microsoft/Sun license sales, but they will need much more to carry on this fight. They were losing money before they launched their suit and continue to lose money on their non source-licensing businesses. As the commentators on this weeks Linux Show noted, they will probably run out of those funds by January and the case will not be heard for at least another year.
As for an IBM buyout, this will never happen. IBM will not reward anyone who threatens them in this way. If SCO had an open-and-shut case against IBM, it would have been settled quitely out of court and no one would even know the details. IBM will fight this to the bitter end, no matter how long it takes, and for them, the longer it takes the better (even if it hurts Linux).
In the short run this will benefit Microsoft, at least in the US, but don't expect it to do permanent damage to Linux. Linux has strength beyond the US's borders and is seen in many places as a defence against US dominance of the IT world.
If SCO really wants to stop Linux, they are going to have to launch suits against the weak and defenceless. From everthing I've read, they don't have a strong enough case based on copyright alone to make this work, and if they were to try and lost such a case, they would lose everything. They need to win against IBM to make the strong case (Linux is a derivative work, regardless of copyright).
Their best bet is to use FUD to extort license fees from big corps that might find it cheaper to pay off SCO rather than take them to court, and hope that this will keep them alive long enough to make the big win. Or, the might convince some else (MS, if they think they can take the heat from the DoJ) to buy them out just to prosecute the suit.
I've only seen the scanners used in municipal elections (Toronto). AFIK, votes Federal elections are still counted by hand, all within a few hours. You're right. There is nothing wrong and plenty right with this system.
"I see new cars, new homes, people buying all kinds of good stuff, which flies in the face of the people crying out that the U.S. is coming to an end."
A business commentatory on today's CBC Toronto morning radio show, while discussing the possible effects of the massive US Federal deficit on the Canadian economy, noted that the American consumer is currently spending (in aggregate) 111% of income. The American economy has been pumped up by the funds from homeowners remortgaging their houses to take advantage of all-time low interest rates. This in turn has led to an inflated housing market. If interest rates rise it could lead to financial disaster for middle-class Americans.
The record US government deficit coupled with a record current account (imports over exports) deficit, all financed by foreign investment, are creating the conditions for a major world financial crisis. The "end" may well be near.
This action by SCO should put them in clear violation of the GPL and open the way to action by the FSF or others against SCO.
So far, SCO has proved absolutely nothing. The carefully managed show-and-tell sesssions were designed to give the illusion of presenting evidence while ensuring no real facts were released. That SCO could show printouts of files (curiously with date stamps removed) that appeared to be similar in no way constitutes proof that the code claimed to be from SVSV was in fact so or even that the so-called Linux code was from Linux, since those who viewed the source were not able to make independent verifications. More importantly, SCO has not released or shown any version control audit trails to back up any of their copyright claims.
It's my opinion that this is an audacious extortion scheme, that will be backed up, at best, by dubious legal manouvers.
Are you sure its theft? I often see the following tag on sites that republish articles from major news sites.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
I think a point relevant to this suit that is missed by many is is what AT&T considered the UNIX system to be. Quoting from the AT&T UNIX System V Users Guide, Second Edition (Prentice Hall), page 3:
Figure 1-1 is a model of the UNIX system. Each circle represents one of the main components of the UNIX system: the kernel, the shell, and user programs or commands.
The FSF's comments seem entirely appropriate in this context.
As for the ongoing battle between the pro and anti FSF groups, it seems pointless. It takes nothing away from those who work on the kernel to acknowleged that "Linux" distributions are as dependant on GNU as Linux.
On the other hand, the FSF is waging a losing battle in trying to re-brand Linux as GNU/Linux. Unless they have funds to carry out a major advertising campaign they are unlikely to change the perceptions of the general public. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear at some point in the future someone refer to an all GNU/Hurd system as "Linux".
Perhaps by "native bindings to Gnome" you mean something along the lines of SWT in Eclipse,but it's interersting to note that the Java 2 SDK release 1.4.2 Beta does include preliminary support for a GTK+ 2.0 Swing look-and-feel. See
this
for details.
It's very unlikely IBM would even consider a buyout. It would be seen as giving in to blackmail and only encourage others to try the same attack. I'm sure that they will fight a long and expensive battle in the courts.
This is also a good argument that the offending lines, if indeed they originated in SYS5V4 and not Linux or some other common source, cannot be any essential part of the kernel. Core kernel code would be far too dependent on datastructures and interfaces that would only be identical if Linus had been reading from SYS5V4 code all along. I think this would have been noticed long before now;).
It's more likely that any copied code is in some section of code with a well defined interface and that requires few call out to other kernel facilities - perhaps in a portion of a device driver for some less-than-common device.
"Infact, if it wasnt for the AT&T stuff, BSD may never have become a full Operating System."
You should go re-read your UNIX history books. In the early years of UNIX development ATT gave source code licences to universities including UC Berkeley. BSD is derived more-or-less from that original source, much modified by generations of students and professors. One could argue that ATT UNIX might "never have become a full Operating System" without the contributions of the Berkeley community: virtual memory management and TCP/IP, just to mention two.
As for SCO's attack affecting BSD, the issue has already been settled by the courts in BSD's favour in a suit brought by ATT against Berkeley. This has been noted in many posts over the last week.
Change that 'was' to present tense for me. Intuit recently decided that it can not longer support Quicken2001 (yeh right!!) and has terminated the banking download features for all Quicken2001 users suggesting, naturally, that I should upgrade to the latest Quicken XG.
Well, I dutifully looked at the upgrade only to find that Intuit has decided that it will not release a Canadian version of Quicken 2003. Instead, they seem to be piloting a subscription-only product here in Canada with a mimumum annual fee of more than twice what I paid for Quicken 2001. They won't see me as a customer.
I would have upgraded to Quicken 2003 if it were available (and I hadn't read all the negative reviews on Amazon). And I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable price for the online 'features' that I actually wanted to use. But I won't pay to be spied on and sold to advertisers - which seem to be the major 'features' of the 'upgrade'.
As for DRM, you can bet that Intuit has loaded Quicken XG with 'protection features'. Speaking of protection, by default Quicken XG seems to store your data on their servers. You pay to get access to your own confidential data.
If they get away with this here (Canada) you can expect to see this everywhere soon. I say boycott them.
Slashdot Mirror
Atheists (note the latin form of the word implies opposit of theist IE the negative, not the absense of ie nullification): these believe that deities do not exist
You have your languages mixed up. The word is Greek in origin. theos is Greek for 'god'. The 'a' is the alpha privativum, expressing 'want' or 'absence', like Latin in-. See your Liddel & Scott.You miss-typed one whois address. It's not the Canadians, its the Russians.
See part one of the article for all the stuff about checking your hardware.
Net energy is a different concept. It is the ratio of the amount of energy produced over the life-time of a plant divided by all of the energy consumed in mining, refining, transportation and disposal of fuel plus all of the energy consumed in construction and maintenance of the nuclear plant (including manufacturing and transport of all materials used in the plant). That is a very different accounting than just looking at the reactions. The net energy of oil is higher because we don't have to put nearly as much energy into the system before we get something out. In the early days of the oil industry, the energy yield was as high as 100.
Malthus may have been proven wrong in the short run (last few centuries), but there is plenty of time in the long term for him to be proven right.
My main point was about an economic fallacy, that the market will always provide pretty much anything we want. That is not so. What it will do is allocate efficiently (at least in theory) what we can produce using what we do have (not what we wish we had).
As for nuclear energy (actually for any energy source) what counts is energy yield (net energy) and that is far less than what you might expect if you only look at the energy density of the source. It has been estimated that conventional light-water reactors have a energy yield of only 4 to 4.5 (ODUM, 1996). That's not bad but less than oil at 8 to 10. We can probably do better, but not by orders of magnitude. If we stick to uranium, it has been estimated that the US has enough to fuel its current reactors for about 40 years. That's not anywhere enough to use uranium to produce subsitutes for declining oil and gas sources. Perhaps we can do better using breeder reactors, but breeder reactors are much more difficult to design and operate have generally been abandonded.
This form of economic optimisim is misleading. While market mechanism may provide incentives for change and lead to some form of optimal use of what is avaliable, they can't create something that just doesn't exit.
It's entirely possible that we could run out of sufficient oil to keep our current system running before we can develop the technology to support an alternative soucre. Of all the alternatives currently known, only nuclear fusion has the potential to allow us to continue the kind of enegy expenditure we currently enjoy but its still decades away (if ever) from any practical use. None of the other alternatives, oil sands, oil shales, uranium based fission plants, coal or renewables can meet demand.
Market mechanisims can't guarantee that kind of physical economy we currently enjoy can be sustained. At best, they will goad us to adapt and make the best use of what resources remain to us in a what might be a very different future.
While there may be a huge amount of oil potentially avaliable in tar sands, that doesn't mean that we'll ever be able to extract all it for use.
The Syncrude plant in Alberta currently requires the equivalent of 2 barrels of oil as input for every 3 barrels produced (using natural gas to fire the hot water extraction process). It also requires 2.5 barrels of water for every barrel produced. This is for the most accessable, strip mined sands. Production is no longer viable when energy inputs exceed energy produced and is limited by available of water supplies. These plants are also very expensive. The next-generation Syncrude plant is alreay several billion dollars over budget and still unfinished.The system you've described (scanned paper) is exactly the kind of system used in recent municipal elections here in Toronto.
The ballot has the candidates' names listed with broken arrows pointing to them. To vote, you fill in the arrow of your choice. The ballot is placed in a folder that covers your vote, but leaves the top edge free. The poll clerk (under your supervision) places the folder on the scanner, face down, and the scanner pulls the ballot from the folder, scans it and drops it into the ballot box. Simple.
I would have thought that banks would have taken every precaution necessary to isolate their ATMs from Internet based attacks, but it seems that it is not so. Dedicated lines or not, they are still vulnerable.
Last January 3 major Canadian and 1 US banks' ATMs were disrupted disrupted by the Slammer worm
I know from personal experience that my bank (CIBC) runs NT/W2K on their ATMs. I've see it reboot, BSODS and Windows 'Start' screens on various ATMs.
Oh, I don't think it will be that simple. The members of any jury will more than likely be forced to learn far more about backup schedules, verifcation of tapes, source-code control systems and the like than they would ever want to know about. Do really think IBM's lawyers will let SCO get away with the simple "here's two block of similar code - they must have stolen it" trick without raising a single question in cross-examination? SCO will have to provide excruciatingly detailed histories for every line of code they show (just for starters).
See the Scientific American article "Speaking in Tones". It seems speakers of Asian tonal languages have close-to-perfect pitch.
IIRC OSF was not open source. It was a open standard/closed source project sponsored primarily by IBM and DEC. They were the ones attempting to "divide and conquer" the emerging UNIX market, not SUN. That was back when there were 80 plus UNIX system vendors, IBM was the 'great satan' and Microsoft was irrelevant.
My how things have changed!
If you're just looking for a general workstation, the answer is there isn't much of a point.
What you're missing is that workstations haven't been Sun's main line of business for many years. They sell servers for corporate functions, like running very large Oracle databases for transaction processing. Their main selling point isn't raw speed, or Solaris or any other single factor. Like Apple in the desktop world, they focus on integration. They try to make everything work together well. Even if they don't always succeed at this, if you buy from Sun you generally get good, stable, reliable and ultimately cost-effective solution for general business processing.
Actually, I think that Gates and MS very much do get this and they want very much to dominate internal corporate development as they do the retail space. Of course, they have made progress in this area -- they own the corporate desktop, office tools and there are probably millions of little VB systems all over the world -- but they also want the middle and upper tiers. That puts them squarely up against IBM.
This may ultimately be the deciding factor in the OSS IP wars. As a poster notes below, "IBM dosen't love Linux", but I'm certain they like the opening it has given to launch a counter-attack against MS after the beating they took in the Widows vs OS/2 war. What's more important, Linux stands as a defensive wall barring MS from moving into the middle tier of large scale Web/DB application servicing and ultimately protects the mainframe bastion.
Without the self-interested support of IBM and possibly other major corporations, Linux would be in a precarious position in the USA. There is an expression I've heard the suits use in situations like this: "take the candy from the baby". Since the OSS community doesn't have the legal-financial resources to build and defend patent portfolios it makes it all to easy for corportations to consider stealing (by 'legal' means) the candy
Hardball? Yes it certainly is. But I don't buy the rest of your arguments.
SCO has a small war chest from the Microsoft/Sun license sales, but they will need much more to carry on this fight. They were losing money before they launched their suit and continue to lose money on their non source-licensing businesses. As the commentators on this weeks Linux Show noted, they will probably run out of those funds by January and the case will not be heard for at least another year.
As for an IBM buyout, this will never happen. IBM will not reward anyone who threatens them in this way. If SCO had an open-and-shut case against IBM, it would have been settled quitely out of court and no one would even know the details. IBM will fight this to the bitter end, no matter how long it takes, and for them, the longer it takes the better (even if it hurts Linux).
In the short run this will benefit Microsoft, at least in the US, but don't expect it to do permanent damage to Linux. Linux has strength beyond the US's borders and is seen in many places as a defence against US dominance of the IT world.
If SCO really wants to stop Linux, they are going to have to launch suits against the weak and defenceless. From everthing I've read, they don't have a strong enough case based on copyright alone to make this work, and if they were to try and lost such a case, they would lose everything. They need to win against IBM to make the strong case (Linux is a derivative work, regardless of copyright).
Their best bet is to use FUD to extort license fees from big corps that might find it cheaper to pay off SCO rather than take them to court, and hope that this will keep them alive long enough to make the big win. Or, the might convince some else (MS, if they think they can take the heat from the DoJ) to buy them out just to prosecute the suit.
I've only seen the scanners used in municipal elections (Toronto). AFIK, votes Federal elections are still counted by hand, all within a few hours. You're right. There is nothing wrong and plenty right with this system.
"I see new cars, new homes, people buying all kinds of good stuff, which flies in the face of the people crying out that the U.S. is coming to an end."
A business commentatory on today's CBC Toronto morning radio show, while discussing the possible effects of the massive US Federal deficit on the Canadian economy, noted that the American consumer is currently spending (in aggregate) 111% of income. The American economy has been pumped up by the funds from homeowners remortgaging their houses to take advantage of all-time low interest rates. This in turn has led to an inflated housing market. If interest rates rise it could lead to financial disaster for middle-class Americans.
The record US government deficit coupled with a record current account (imports over exports) deficit, all financed by foreign investment, are creating the conditions for a major world financial crisis. The "end" may well be near.
This action by SCO should put them in clear violation of the GPL and open the way to action by the FSF or others against SCO.
So far, SCO has proved absolutely nothing. The carefully managed show-and-tell sesssions were designed to give the illusion of presenting evidence while ensuring no real facts were released. That SCO could show printouts of files (curiously with date stamps removed) that appeared to be similar in no way constitutes proof that the code claimed to be from SVSV was in fact so or even that the so-called Linux code was from Linux, since those who viewed the source were not able to make independent verifications. More importantly, SCO has not released or shown any version control audit trails to back up any of their copyright claims.
It's my opinion that this is an audacious extortion scheme, that will be backed up, at best, by dubious legal manouvers.
Are you sure its theft? I often see the following tag on sites that republish articles from major news sites.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
I think a point relevant to this suit that is missed by many is is what AT&T considered the UNIX system to be. Quoting from the AT&T UNIX System V Users Guide, Second Edition (Prentice Hall), page 3:
Figure 1-1 is a model of the UNIX system. Each circle represents one of the main components of the UNIX system: the kernel, the shell, and user programs or commands.
The FSF's comments seem entirely appropriate in this context.
As for the ongoing battle between the pro and anti FSF groups, it seems pointless. It takes nothing away from those who work on the kernel to acknowleged that "Linux" distributions are as dependant on GNU as Linux.
On the other hand, the FSF is waging a losing battle in trying to re-brand Linux as GNU/Linux. Unless they have funds to carry out a major advertising campaign they are unlikely to change the perceptions of the general public. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear at some point in the future someone refer to an all GNU/Hurd system as "Linux".
Perhaps by "native bindings to Gnome" you mean something along the lines of SWT in Eclipse,but it's interersting to note that the Java 2 SDK release 1.4.2 Beta does include preliminary support for a GTK+ 2.0 Swing look-and-feel. See this for details.
It's very unlikely IBM would even consider a buyout. It would be seen as giving in to blackmail and only encourage others to try the same attack. I'm sure that they will fight a long and expensive battle in the courts.
This is also a good argument that the offending lines, if indeed they originated in SYS5V4 and not Linux or some other common source, cannot be any essential part of the kernel. Core kernel code would be far too dependent on datastructures and interfaces that would only be identical if Linus had been reading from SYS5V4 code all along. I think this would have been noticed long before now ;).
It's more likely that any copied code is in some section of code with a well defined interface and that requires few call out to other kernel facilities - perhaps in a portion of a device driver for some less-than-common device.
"Infact, if it wasnt for the AT&T stuff, BSD may never have become a full Operating System."
You should go re-read your UNIX history books. In the early years of UNIX development ATT gave source code licences to universities including UC Berkeley. BSD is derived more-or-less from that original source, much modified by generations of students and professors. One could argue that ATT UNIX might "never have become a full Operating System" without the contributions of the Berkeley community: virtual memory management and TCP/IP, just to mention two.
As for SCO's attack affecting BSD, the issue has already been settled by the courts in BSD's favour in a suit brought by ATT against Berkeley. This has been noted in many posts over the last week.
Change that 'was' to present tense for me. Intuit recently decided that it can not longer support Quicken2001 (yeh right!!) and has terminated the banking download features for all Quicken2001 users suggesting, naturally, that I should upgrade to the latest Quicken XG.
Well, I dutifully looked at the upgrade only to find that Intuit has decided that it will not release a Canadian version of Quicken 2003. Instead, they seem to be piloting a subscription-only product here in Canada with a mimumum annual fee of more than twice what I paid for Quicken 2001. They won't see me as a customer.
I would have upgraded to Quicken 2003 if it were available (and I hadn't read all the negative reviews on Amazon). And I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable price for the online 'features' that I actually wanted to use. But I won't pay to be spied on and sold to advertisers - which seem to be the major 'features' of the 'upgrade'.
As for DRM, you can bet that Intuit has loaded Quicken XG with 'protection features'. Speaking of protection, by default Quicken XG seems to store your data on their servers. You pay to get access to your own confidential data.
If they get away with this here (Canada) you can expect to see this everywhere soon. I say boycott them.