The problems in Florida in 2000 are chump change compared to the potential fraud possible with e-voting.
I really don't understand where all this paranoia surrounding e-voting is coming from. Electronic systems have been successfully used in large scale elections (think India, Austrailia) with absolutely no negative fallout. Electronic voting is really no more insecure than any other kind of voting if you don't have absolute idiots at the polls. Give them a few hours training in security, audit the polls with random security checks, fire people when they don't do their job, etc and e-voting can work very well.
Duh. If you don't want a virus infection, then you need a good firewall program.
I disagree. I've been online slightly more than 15 years and I've had a total of 2 viruses in that entire time. I don't run a firewall, I don't run a virus scanner, and I don't always run Linux. I do, however, practice security:
1) I don't open any attachments until I confirm with the sender that they intended to send it. If it's from am unknown source, I don't open it at all.
2)I don't browse unknown websites from Usenet or IRC or email. If a friend of mine automessages me on IRC with a website I confirm if they intended to send it.
3)I keep the preview pane in Outlook turned OFF. Recently, I've moved totally away from Outlook and Outlook Express and use PC-PINE on Windows exclusively or Evolution on Linux.
4) I keep IE's security settings for the Internet zone to medium and sometimes high.
5) I keep Windows patched.
Some of you might disregard this. But I think the fact that I've gotten 2 viruses in 15 years is a pretty good track record. Both times were when I was 14 and both times were from a friends disk.
The firewall and antivirus industries, IMHO are a moneymaking scam. If you practice good security there really is no need for either of those.
If you could get to the cdr drive, you'd be inside the machine. If you were inside the machine, you'd just take the cash.
I used to be the IT director at a credit union and part of my job was servicing the ATM's (taking money out, adding reciept paper, rebooting it if it went down, etc). NONE of the ATM's had a "get in the iron box and you can take the money) type setup.
The way ours worked (and I think they were all Diebold) was that you'd have a key to open the enclosure. This gave you access to the hardware - including the computer. Inside the enclosure was another metal box with a SEPERATE lock that required two keys to get into. The idea was that it took two employees to get to the cash and we were always sent out in teams when we went to get the money. One BOTH employees provided their key then the cashbox could be opened.
ATM physical security is pretty dang good IMHO. And the logical security COULD be pretty good even if running Windows if the right precautions were taken. Our particular ATM's were/are running good old OS/2 (with a few -- I believe -- running WinNT). But XP can be secured properly. It takes some work but it isn't such a horrible proposition.
The future of Windows is inside a VMWare virtual machine, running on a linux kernel and operating system
I've been saying something very similar to this for a number of years. Let's face it: Microsoft sucks when it comes to OS development but it excels at UI design. The Windows interface is exceptionally easy to use and very intuitive and they drop at least $800 million a year to study just how to make the GUI better and more user friendly.
My prediction is that, over the next few years, we're going to see a new Microsoft start to appear. One that is battle weary from a very competitive market (generated mostly from Linux) and one that realizes its problems are far to big to "code out" of the OS. My prediction is that within 5 years we're going to see Microsoft do to Windows what Apple did to their OS: they will focus on what they do best: GUI design and lay that excellent GUI on top of a Linux or BSD kernel.
I not only think this is the only way Windows will survive in the long term but it is the absolute smartest business move Microsoft can make to generate higher revenue while cutting cost and giving people what they want. The motivations for keeping their code closed are quickly disappearing as equal or better quality open alternatives are appearing. I think they are going to realize this pretty soon and realize that the only effective way to compete is to contribute.
Why should Microsoft's applications have an advantage purely because they make the OS and can integrate their apps into into Windows so tightly you cannot remove them?
Because they create the product. I've never fully understood why people are so opposed to Microsoft, their closed source code, and their competitive business practices (Note: I said competitive. They DO engage in monopolistic practices that I believe should be curtailed).
For many years before MS was the hulking giant that it is today it was "just another software company" among many. Gates doesn't have psychic or magic powers, and he didn't have a monopolistic stronghold on the industry when MS got started. What he did have, however, was an incredible business sense and the vision to accurately predict where the PC market was going and how he and MS could help drive it there.
When MS first began, the playing field was level. When MS first began there were literally thousands of small ISV's who were successful. Let's not even mention companies like IBM who were the corporate giants of the time. Are we to believe that companies couldn't compete with MS way back then? Of course they could and they did. So then, what made the difference? Why is MS still around and becoming a monopoly while these other companies have largely gone by the wayside? Monopolistic practices? No. Vision.
In order to have a monopoly you have to 1) have something that has reached a critical mass in usage, and 2) have something with no viable alternatives. In the beginning Microsoft had niether of those. What it did have however is vision, passion, and drive. They wanted to revolutionize the PC industry and "change the world" -- whatever that meant. So Microsoft began creating pretty good software for the average Joe on the streeet and people liked it. The facts are that it's not that other companies couldn't compete with MS. It's that they wouldn't because MS was the best at what they did. They recruited and hired the very brightest people, had bright people in management, and understood the market. Anyone could have competed with MS. But they couldn't do it well so they didn't.
Today, we complain about MS having a stranglehold on the industry with their inferior products and monopolistic practices. But what we need to remember is that, for the most part, MS has earned a loyal following by doing what they do very well. Sure, in recent years there've been major issues with security. But that wasn't the case in the beginning. It's a result of their unquenched powerlust and it will come to bite them in the butt (possibly with this EU thing). But saying that MS doesn't have the RIGHT to close its products, or to compete like hell in the marketplace (as long as it's fair) is silly.
I love Linux. And I have a lot of problems with Microsoft (especially their business practices). But I think that if we in the OSS community would take a lesson from MS's early years and start to think like business people instead of only like geeks we could overtake the Redmond Beast in a very short time. Linux is superior in many ways. But it's terribly inferior in marketing. The answer is not forcing MS to open up their products -- that won't happen. The answer is to provide a viable alternative that allows users to do EVERYTHING they can on their MS desktop without the need to have to "think like a geek". Marketing is OSS's biggest enemy not MS having an "unfair" advantage because they integrate everything. We are faced with two choices: whine about how unfair the software world dominated by MS is and keep producing "geek" tools or start doing something real to change it.
Apache is wonderful, I use it for my own webserver, but I am also a seasoned (18+yr) sysadmin. I've seen people who are "sysadmins" (2 yrs maybe) that have all kinds of trouble getting it to work right. If thats the case, how is grandma going to get it to work?
On the flipside of this, I know someone with ZERO IT experience who had apache with ColdFusion, PHP, and Perl working in less than 30 minutes by using the documentation alone.
You have two sides to the zealotry: 1) Linux will never be ready for prime time until grandma can install every package and use it effectively and 2) If you can't install it from the docs and user community then you don't need to use it. Both of these sides are flawed. Consider this:
Point 1 is what I like to call the "grandma whine" and it's nearly totally invalid in both the Windows and Unix worlds. There's a LOT of software that "grandma" can't install and, guess what? It's not marketed or targeted to her because she really wouldn't have much use for it. Web servers and databases are excellent examples of this. How many "grandmas" do you believe are going to even have a NEED to install one of these? And you can bet those that do are going to either already have the requisite tech skills to do so or are able to acquire them. This isn't just a Linux problem -- or a problem at all. It's a marketing reality. You don't focus your marketing or target those who are the lease likely to use your software.
Point 2 is just as flawed as the first point. Sometimes users, even experienced users, do need a little handholding. Nothing wrong with that and it is no reflection of their technical skills or their intelligence. It's YOUR software. What might be painfully obvious to you is a complete mystery to others. And saying "well they can always look at the source code" is a cop out. Being a programmer should not be a prerequisite to using open source solutions. Not everyone who needs the software needs to understand the code. This, IMHO, is the worst marketing nightmare facing the community.
The solution? I don't know. I know part of it will involve the dissolution or lessening of egos. It's also going to involve moving beyond the common vision that "open source MUST be free or it's corrupt!" This is hurting the movement. Open source is NOT great because it's free. It's great because it's open. Plain and simple.
A lot will have to change before Joe User adopts open source across the board in their daily lives. Can it happen? Yes! But it's going to take a revolution in the rank and file of software developers and an all-out intellectual redesign of the way developers look and think about their users and their own software.
If they were an MS shop and were asking Redhat not to send them Linux CD's you'd all be throwing a royal fit.
That's probably true. But do you know why? Because MS software is designed to take away freedom of choice while Linux and open source are designed to expand that freedom. Personally, I do have a problem with my tax dollars being used to take freedom away from my fellow Americans.
We wonder why we live in such a dishonest society. An entire business model based on the premise of helping people deceive others. Great contribution to society there.
Something tells me he slept through his Physics for Crackpots lectures.
Perhaps before insulting other people you should actually *read* the article you're replying to. He wasn't trying to determine if the chips had RFID embedded in them. That was his starting assumption. He was trying to destroy the RFID chip by exposing it to microwave radiation.
what I really think is going way too far is companies deciding who can or cannot be my friend. I have no problem whatsoever with treating everybody as a friend (yes, there are different 'levels' of friend, like all other friends.), and I have no trouble sharing with all my friends.
I've heard arguments like this before and, I have to say, it's one of the weakest one's I've heard used to try to justify copyright infringment.
I think that most *rational* people would agree on a common definition of the term "friend". Additionally, I think most people would agree that someone you've never met, never chatted with, and never had any type of contact with except to trade stuff is *not* a "friend". That is why we have the term "stranger".
When people try to use the argument "I am willing to view/treat anyone as a friend so really when I share my stuff on Kazaa I am sharing with friends" they really don't mean it. Take it to the next level. Since I'm your friend, would you please lend me $5,000? Can I come stay at your house for a few months? Can I borrow your credit card to go buy some computer stuff? I promise, I'll stick to a limit you set. No? Why? I thought we were friends?
Maybe I'm fooling myself by not buying DVDs and not going to movies. Should I just give in? Is anyone here actually still voting with their dollars by withholding it?
Nope, you're absolutely right in what you're doing. The problem is that there simply aren't enough people doing it to make the MPAA sit up and take notice. People are selfish. The average person isn't going to get involved and deprive themselves of pleasure just to help "society" if they derrive no immediate return from it.
One solution you might want to try however is the same thing I'm doing with music and dvd's: I never buy them new. Go to a used media store and you can buy the latest stuff (I mean less than weeks old) at incredibly discounted prices. Add to that the fact that the RIAA (music) and the MPAA (movies) don't get a penny for these sales and it just sweetens the pot. That way, you can enjoy the stuff but rest easy in the knowledge that you aren't contributing to the problems.
What is it with " It sounds like a great opportunity for open source software" I am fucking sick of every damn thing being a great opportunity for open source, I love open source idea, but damn, it sends chills down my spine when yall mention it non stop
I think you're missing an important point here. Regardless of what someone might think of copyrighted or proprietary software, the fact remains that every time a piece of such software is pirated someone, somewhere loses money. That amount might be only a few dollars but multiply that by X million and you quickly can realize the cost of software piracy.
Compare that to open source which is, for the most part, free to download and use. Every time someone installs a piece of open source software it creates an opportunity for someone to make money be it on consulting, customization or whatever. Plus, the users aren't breaking any laws by pirating the software and aren't assisting others in breaking the law when they copy and share the software. And people DO share open source software! This, in turn, creates more opportunity for others to make money.
When we look at these two models, we can see the difference immediately: proprietary solutions are a lose/win situation. The consumer loses while the vendor wins. Open source is a win-win situation as both the consumer and the vendor or consultant get what they want.
You hear a lot about open source because it presents an exciting proposition to everyone involved. In most cases, it simply *is* the most effective, affordable, and sensible solution out there. Yes, the zealots are out there. But it's not just because it's open source. It's because it works.
Consulting outfits are in business to take your money; completing your project comes second to billing.
This is far to broad of a generalization. I own a software development consulting firm and I can tell you that billable hours *do not* come before completing the project and doing, not just a good job, but an exceptional job. I do business with consultants every day who hold the same attitude. In fact, I would say that the majority of consultants out there hold a similar attitude. If they didn't they wouldn't be in business very long.
The barter system. Yes, it's as old as time but it still works very well. It's secure, simple, and really nearly eliminates the class system our entire society is based on. Even B2B transactions can be done in barter (American, Continental, and a few other airlines do this routinely as well as most of the Fortune 500). One of the nice things is that, with barter, ANY product is within ANYONE'S reach. It just becomes a matter of connecting buyer and seller.
The problem is that there is no good ANONYMOUS way to purchase things without currency
I've heard rumors that AMEX and MasterCard are playing around with ways to make non-merchent bounded credit cards purchasable w/preset amounts at outlets like Wal-Mart, etc.
If I hadn't already decided who I am going to vote for in the next election getting spam from a candidate could definately help me decide. If I am not signed up for a mailing list of my own volition and I get mail then that is one less candidate in the fray for me to vote for.
What can be done to ensure that this code is kept out of opensource projects?
The nature of open source software makes actually verifying the existence or non-existnece of code very easy. Microsoft wouldn't even need to contact anyone to tell them they thought they were including Microsoft code in their product. They could just download it and check. As could everyone else.
The main problem is, and this is why I think MS has not actually gone to court against major oss projects yet, is that doing so would force them to show the offending lines of code in order for it to be compared to the oss source. If this incident has shown anything it is that revealing source is not something Microsoft wants to ever do -- even for products that are near or at/past EOL.
That said, I think that project managers REALLY are going to need to be vigillent in monitoring contributions to their projects especially when programmers claim to be introducing Microsoft compatibility with the code. Chances will be good that some unethical programmers will try to slip some Microsof owned code into a project. I can actually see some pro MS people joining oss projects just to try to do this then notify MS so they can take legal action. But, if a project manager is doing their job, this should be an easy problem to fix.
What this means is that most of the source code to Windows Explorer, and Internet Explorer are now effectively public domain.
No, that isn't true. Under U.S. copyright law you own the copyright to something the minute it is created. If I write a song and never register it with the copyright office I still own the copyright and I can still sue over the unauthorized use of my work. Not placing a copyright notice makes it *difficult* to prove ownership but it doesn't make it impossible and it certainly doesn't mean it's now in the public domain.
Additionally, do you really think that Microsoft (or any company in a similar situation) wouldn't simply go in and *add* the copyright notices to their source? It's a trivial matter and who do you think law enforcement will believe: a multi-billion dollar company who says "it was there all the time" or somebody who stole their code and is trying to save themselves from an IP suit? One of the most important things anyone in this situation can do is NOT to underestimate Microsoft. Multimillion dollar companies have done so in the past and many of them are no longer around. How do you think the average hacker will fair?
Wow. This is perhaps the most creative and believable load of crap I've read on Slashdot in a while. Not to mention entertaining. I can't believe that someone actually needed attention this badly as to type such a load of crap out.
When I worked as IT administrator for my city government I generally found this attitude to be the norm. Users seems to believe that they have some right to privacy on their work computers and that if you monitor them in any way you're somehow violating their constitutional rights (even though we had an explicit clause in their employment contract that there WAS no such right and that email and computer use was routinely monitored).
Users generally don't understand how simple it is to install spy software -- even remotely on their computers and that there really is no expectation of privacy when you're using a work computer. Get over it people. It doesn't exist.
Getting people to adopt anything new requires some commercialization and good marketing. Linux is no different. What it seems you're intimating here is that if Linux uses the same marketing techniques that commercial vendors use then it's somehow wrong and takes something away from Linux. It doesn't.
The fact that vendors use commercial techniques to sell people on Linux does not take anything away from the fact that Linux offers it's users freedom, stability, and distance from vendor lock-in. Commercial marketing isn't unethical. Commercial marketing isn't bad. Using your taking away freedom from your installed user base is both.
I was actually talking to an accountant a few weeks ago about working together to do this exact same thing. I know of a few companies that need a REAL accounting/ERP solution and, to be honest, there just aren't any good options out there. If anyone's interested in working with me on this get in touch. I've got the accountant who'll consult for free. This could be do-able.
Ah, a "basic rule of the Internet"... never open unknown email attachments. So why do we rely on the user to understand this rule?
I've dealt with my share of clueless users in my day but I think that posts like these simply take away too much responsibility from the user. "Why do we rely on the user to understand this rule?" Probably because these are the same people who we trust driving automobiles, running banks, and owning guns. How difficult is "don't open attachments from ANYONE you don't know and only those you do know after you've properly confirmed it's really from them" to understand?
The problem has nothing to do with users not "understanding" the rules of safe computing. The problem is that practicing safe computing takes a little extra effort and it inconveniences their lives a little more and takes away time that could be spent doing things like viewing porn or forwarding corney jokes around. If the software made it difficult to open attachments then you can bet that the first thing most users would do is either 1) disable the feature that makes it difficult or 2) switch to other software where it wasn't difficult. The problem, over the past several years, has never been that users don't understand. It's that their desire to be part of "something cool" outweighs their sense of responsibility.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't understand where all this paranoia surrounding e-voting is coming from. Electronic systems have been successfully used in large scale elections (think India, Austrailia) with absolutely no negative fallout. Electronic voting is really no more insecure than any other kind of voting if you don't have absolute idiots at the polls. Give them a few hours training in security, audit the polls with random security checks, fire people when they don't do their job, etc and e-voting can work very well.
I disagree. I've been online slightly more than 15 years and I've had a total of 2 viruses in that entire time. I don't run a firewall, I don't run a virus scanner, and I don't always run Linux. I do, however, practice security:
1) I don't open any attachments until I confirm with the sender that they intended to send it. If it's from am unknown source, I don't open it at all.
2)I don't browse unknown websites from Usenet or IRC or email. If a friend of mine automessages me on IRC with a website I confirm if they intended to send it.
3)I keep the preview pane in Outlook turned OFF. Recently, I've moved totally away from Outlook and Outlook Express and use PC-PINE on Windows exclusively or Evolution on Linux.
4) I keep IE's security settings for the Internet zone to medium and sometimes high.
5) I keep Windows patched.
Some of you might disregard this. But I think the fact that I've gotten 2 viruses in 15 years is a pretty good track record. Both times were when I was 14 and both times were from a friends disk.
The firewall and antivirus industries, IMHO are a moneymaking scam. If you practice good security there really is no need for either of those.
Anthony
Looking for a custom Linux based PC or Laptop? Click here and tell me what you need!!
I used to be the IT director at a credit union and part of my job was servicing the ATM's (taking money out, adding reciept paper, rebooting it if it went down, etc). NONE of the ATM's had a "get in the iron box and you can take the money) type setup.
The way ours worked (and I think they were all Diebold) was that you'd have a key to open the enclosure. This gave you access to the hardware - including the computer. Inside the enclosure was another metal box with a SEPERATE lock that required two keys to get into. The idea was that it took two employees to get to the cash and we were always sent out in teams when we went to get the money. One BOTH employees provided their key then the cashbox could be opened.
ATM physical security is pretty dang good IMHO. And the logical security COULD be pretty good even if running Windows if the right precautions were taken. Our particular ATM's were/are running good old OS/2 (with a few -- I believe -- running WinNT). But XP can be secured properly. It takes some work but it isn't such a horrible proposition.
I've been saying something very similar to this for a number of years. Let's face it: Microsoft sucks when it comes to OS development but it excels at UI design. The Windows interface is exceptionally easy to use and very intuitive and they drop at least $800 million a year to study just how to make the GUI better and more user friendly.
My prediction is that, over the next few years, we're going to see a new Microsoft start to appear. One that is battle weary from a very competitive market (generated mostly from Linux) and one that realizes its problems are far to big to "code out" of the OS. My prediction is that within 5 years we're going to see Microsoft do to Windows what Apple did to their OS: they will focus on what they do best: GUI design and lay that excellent GUI on top of a Linux or BSD kernel.
I not only think this is the only way Windows will survive in the long term but it is the absolute smartest business move Microsoft can make to generate higher revenue while cutting cost and giving people what they want. The motivations for keeping their code closed are quickly disappearing as equal or better quality open alternatives are appearing. I think they are going to realize this pretty soon and realize that the only effective way to compete is to contribute.
Because they create the product. I've never fully understood why people are so opposed to Microsoft, their closed source code, and their competitive business practices (Note: I said competitive. They DO engage in monopolistic practices that I believe should be curtailed).
For many years before MS was the hulking giant that it is today it was "just another software company" among many. Gates doesn't have psychic or magic powers, and he didn't have a monopolistic stronghold on the industry when MS got started. What he did have, however, was an incredible business sense and the vision to accurately predict where the PC market was going and how he and MS could help drive it there.
When MS first began, the playing field was level. When MS first began there were literally thousands of small ISV's who were successful. Let's not even mention companies like IBM who were the corporate giants of the time. Are we to believe that companies couldn't compete with MS way back then? Of course they could and they did. So then, what made the difference? Why is MS still around and becoming a monopoly while these other companies have largely gone by the wayside? Monopolistic practices? No. Vision.
In order to have a monopoly you have to 1) have something that has reached a critical mass in usage, and 2) have something with no viable alternatives. In the beginning Microsoft had niether of those. What it did have however is vision, passion, and drive. They wanted to revolutionize the PC industry and "change the world" -- whatever that meant. So Microsoft began creating pretty good software for the average Joe on the streeet and people liked it. The facts are that it's not that other companies couldn't compete with MS. It's that they wouldn't because MS was the best at what they did. They recruited and hired the very brightest people, had bright people in management, and understood the market. Anyone could have competed with MS. But they couldn't do it well so they didn't.
Today, we complain about MS having a stranglehold on the industry with their inferior products and monopolistic practices. But what we need to remember is that, for the most part, MS has earned a loyal following by doing what they do very well. Sure, in recent years there've been major issues with security. But that wasn't the case in the beginning. It's a result of their unquenched powerlust and it will come to bite them in the butt (possibly with this EU thing). But saying that MS doesn't have the RIGHT to close its products, or to compete like hell in the marketplace (as long as it's fair) is silly.
I love Linux. And I have a lot of problems with Microsoft (especially their business practices). But I think that if we in the OSS community would take a lesson from MS's early years and start to think like business people instead of only like geeks we could overtake the Redmond Beast in a very short time. Linux is superior in many ways. But it's terribly inferior in marketing. The answer is not forcing MS to open up their products -- that won't happen. The answer is to provide a viable alternative that allows users to do EVERYTHING they can on their MS desktop without the need to have to "think like a geek". Marketing is OSS's biggest enemy not MS having an "unfair" advantage because they integrate everything. We are faced with two choices: whine about how unfair the software world dominated by MS is and keep producing "geek" tools or start doing something real to change it.
On the flipside of this, I know someone with ZERO IT experience who had apache with ColdFusion, PHP, and Perl working in less than 30 minutes by using the documentation alone.
You have two sides to the zealotry: 1) Linux will never be ready for prime time until grandma can install every package and use it effectively and 2) If you can't install it from the docs and user community then you don't need to use it. Both of these sides are flawed. Consider this:
Point 1 is what I like to call the "grandma whine" and it's nearly totally invalid in both the Windows and Unix worlds. There's a LOT of software that "grandma" can't install and, guess what? It's not marketed or targeted to her because she really wouldn't have much use for it. Web servers and databases are excellent examples of this. How many "grandmas" do you believe are going to even have a NEED to install one of these? And you can bet those that do are going to either already have the requisite tech skills to do so or are able to acquire them. This isn't just a Linux problem -- or a problem at all. It's a marketing reality. You don't focus your marketing or target those who are the lease likely to use your software.
Point 2 is just as flawed as the first point. Sometimes users, even experienced users, do need a little handholding. Nothing wrong with that and it is no reflection of their technical skills or their intelligence. It's YOUR software. What might be painfully obvious to you is a complete mystery to others. And saying "well they can always look at the source code" is a cop out. Being a programmer should not be a prerequisite to using open source solutions. Not everyone who needs the software needs to understand the code. This, IMHO, is the worst marketing nightmare facing the community.
The solution? I don't know. I know part of it will involve the dissolution or lessening of egos. It's also going to involve moving beyond the common vision that "open source MUST be free or it's corrupt!" This is hurting the movement. Open source is NOT great because it's free. It's great because it's open. Plain and simple.
A lot will have to change before Joe User adopts open source across the board in their daily lives. Can it happen? Yes! But it's going to take a revolution in the rank and file of software developers and an all-out intellectual redesign of the way developers look and think about their users and their own software.
That is rather odd. I never visit the Hotmail website but I use Outlook to check my HM account. I couldn't access the server until nearly 6:00PM CST.
Strategic Outsourcing Analyst and Coordinator? :->
That's probably true. But do you know why? Because MS software is designed to take away freedom of choice while Linux and open source are designed to expand that freedom. Personally, I do have a problem with my tax dollars being used to take freedom away from my fellow Americans.
We wonder why we live in such a dishonest society. An entire business model based on the premise of helping people deceive others. Great contribution to society there.
Perhaps before insulting other people you should actually *read* the article you're replying to. He wasn't trying to determine if the chips had RFID embedded in them. That was his starting assumption. He was trying to destroy the RFID chip by exposing it to microwave radiation.
I've heard arguments like this before and, I have to say, it's one of the weakest one's I've heard used to try to justify copyright infringment.
I think that most *rational* people would agree on a common definition of the term "friend". Additionally, I think most people would agree that someone you've never met, never chatted with, and never had any type of contact with except to trade stuff is *not* a "friend". That is why we have the term "stranger".
When people try to use the argument "I am willing to view/treat anyone as a friend so really when I share my stuff on Kazaa I am sharing with friends" they really don't mean it. Take it to the next level. Since I'm your friend, would you please lend me $5,000? Can I come stay at your house for a few months? Can I borrow your credit card to go buy some computer stuff? I promise, I'll stick to a limit you set. No? Why? I thought we were friends?
Nope, you're absolutely right in what you're doing. The problem is that there simply aren't enough people doing it to make the MPAA sit up and take notice. People are selfish. The average person isn't going to get involved and deprive themselves of pleasure just to help "society" if they derrive no immediate return from it.
One solution you might want to try however is the same thing I'm doing with music and dvd's: I never buy them new. Go to a used media store and you can buy the latest stuff (I mean less than weeks old) at incredibly discounted prices. Add to that the fact that the RIAA (music) and the MPAA (movies) don't get a penny for these sales and it just sweetens the pot. That way, you can enjoy the stuff but rest easy in the knowledge that you aren't contributing to the problems.
I think you're missing an important point here. Regardless of what someone might think of copyrighted or proprietary software, the fact remains that every time a piece of such software is pirated someone, somewhere loses money. That amount might be only a few dollars but multiply that by X million and you quickly can realize the cost of software piracy.
Compare that to open source which is, for the most part, free to download and use. Every time someone installs a piece of open source software it creates an opportunity for someone to make money be it on consulting, customization or whatever. Plus, the users aren't breaking any laws by pirating the software and aren't assisting others in breaking the law when they copy and share the software. And people DO share open source software! This, in turn, creates more opportunity for others to make money.
When we look at these two models, we can see the difference immediately: proprietary solutions are a lose/win situation. The consumer loses while the vendor wins. Open source is a win-win situation as both the consumer and the vendor or consultant get what they want.
You hear a lot about open source because it presents an exciting proposition to everyone involved. In most cases, it simply *is* the most effective, affordable, and sensible solution out there. Yes, the zealots are out there. But it's not just because it's open source. It's because it works.
This is far to broad of a generalization. I own a software development consulting firm and I can tell you that billable hours *do not* come before completing the project and doing, not just a good job, but an exceptional job. I do business with consultants every day who hold the same attitude. In fact, I would say that the majority of consultants out there hold a similar attitude. If they didn't they wouldn't be in business very long.
The barter system. Yes, it's as old as time but it still works very well. It's secure, simple, and really nearly eliminates the class system our entire society is based on. Even B2B transactions can be done in barter (American, Continental, and a few other airlines do this routinely as well as most of the Fortune 500). One of the nice things is that, with barter, ANY product is within ANYONE'S reach. It just becomes a matter of connecting buyer and seller.
I've heard rumors that AMEX and MasterCard are playing around with ways to make non-merchent bounded credit cards purchasable w/preset amounts at outlets like Wal-Mart, etc.
If I hadn't already decided who I am going to vote for in the next election getting spam from a candidate could definately help me decide. If I am not signed up for a mailing list of my own volition and I get mail then that is one less candidate in the fray for me to vote for.
The nature of open source software makes actually verifying the existence or non-existnece of code very easy. Microsoft wouldn't even need to contact anyone to tell them they thought they were including Microsoft code in their product. They could just download it and check. As could everyone else.
The main problem is, and this is why I think MS has not actually gone to court against major oss projects yet, is that doing so would force them to show the offending lines of code in order for it to be compared to the oss source. If this incident has shown anything it is that revealing source is not something Microsoft wants to ever do -- even for products that are near or at/past EOL.
That said, I think that project managers REALLY are going to need to be vigillent in monitoring contributions to their projects especially when programmers claim to be introducing Microsoft compatibility with the code. Chances will be good that some unethical programmers will try to slip some Microsof owned code into a project. I can actually see some pro MS people joining oss projects just to try to do this then notify MS so they can take legal action. But, if a project manager is doing their job, this should be an easy problem to fix.
No, that isn't true. Under U.S. copyright law you own the copyright to something the minute it is created. If I write a song and never register it with the copyright office I still own the copyright and I can still sue over the unauthorized use of my work. Not placing a copyright notice makes it *difficult* to prove ownership but it doesn't make it impossible and it certainly doesn't mean it's now in the public domain.
Additionally, do you really think that Microsoft (or any company in a similar situation) wouldn't simply go in and *add* the copyright notices to their source? It's a trivial matter and who do you think law enforcement will believe: a multi-billion dollar company who says "it was there all the time" or somebody who stole their code and is trying to save themselves from an IP suit? One of the most important things anyone in this situation can do is NOT to underestimate Microsoft. Multimillion dollar companies have done so in the past and many of them are no longer around. How do you think the average hacker will fair?
Wow. This is perhaps the most creative and believable load of crap I've read on Slashdot in a while. Not to mention entertaining. I can't believe that someone actually needed attention this badly as to type such a load of crap out.
Users generally don't understand how simple it is to install spy software -- even remotely on their computers and that there really is no expectation of privacy when you're using a work computer. Get over it people. It doesn't exist.
Anthony
The fact that vendors use commercial techniques to sell people on Linux does not take anything away from the fact that Linux offers it's users freedom, stability, and distance from vendor lock-in. Commercial marketing isn't unethical. Commercial marketing isn't bad. Using your taking away freedom from your installed user base is both.
I was actually talking to an accountant a few weeks ago about working together to do this exact same thing. I know of a few companies that need a REAL accounting/ERP solution and, to be honest, there just aren't any good options out there. If anyone's interested in working with me on this get in touch. I've got the accountant who'll consult for free. This could be do-able.
I've dealt with my share of clueless users in my day but I think that posts like these simply take away too much responsibility from the user. "Why do we rely on the user to understand this rule?" Probably because these are the same people who we trust driving automobiles, running banks, and owning guns. How difficult is "don't open attachments from ANYONE you don't know and only those you do know after you've properly confirmed it's really from them" to understand?
The problem has nothing to do with users not "understanding" the rules of safe computing. The problem is that practicing safe computing takes a little extra effort and it inconveniences their lives a little more and takes away time that could be spent doing things like viewing porn or forwarding corney jokes around. If the software made it difficult to open attachments then you can bet that the first thing most users would do is either 1) disable the feature that makes it difficult or 2) switch to other software where it wasn't difficult. The problem, over the past several years, has never been that users don't understand. It's that their desire to be part of "something cool" outweighs their sense of responsibility.