Supposing they're not, is there any interest in the community to possibly fork Slashcode and start a new Slash-based website with the same intent but better editors?
I see an excellent opportunity for public sex, sort of like the Mile High Club! I mean, 3 person glass bubbles speeding along congested public thorofares? Can't get any better than that!
He gets 4 million emails a day. I'm sure 3.9 million of them are spam. However, 100,000 of them are almost certainly emails that are unique, and not easily filterable. Why in the hell wouldn't it require basically a whole department (by which I mean > 30 people, probably more like 100) to filter out the 100 emails that deserve a decision maker's opinion, and the 20 that require BillG himself to look at them?
Clearly there will be filters, but my guess is that less than a few percent make it through the electronic filters, and most of those are from within the M$ net IP block. The rest, perhaps a few hundred a day, can be processed by 2 or 3 secretaries.
If you want to call that a department, fine. I'm done with this conversation.
It says NOTHING about BG having a department for reading his spam mail; it talks about BG having staff that are "almost" their own department. And, if you Google for other descriptions of the Ballmer talk where he spoke about BG's spam problem, it's even MORE nebulous.
Anon Coward: "No. it's not legal, not for a monopoly."
Sure. And Microsoft came out looking really bad in the last antitrust go-round; boy did they pay for their sins that time!
For all practical purposes, it is legal for Microsoft to stifle competition with their patents. They will do it flagrantly under the guise of "protecting our intellectual property". And no one will stop them.
Nowhere does it say Bill Gates has an entire department to filter his email (though I don't see why he should not, considering he can afford it). It says they have "special technology", and "almost" a whole department (which probably means two or three secretarial types vetting the junk that doesn't get filtered with the "special technology".
And to all of this, I say "big deal". I would say "nice M$ troll" but it's actually kind of weak.
For OSRM to point out Linux patent vulnerabilities (interestingly for the purpose of profiting through selling their product) is like walking down the street in a big city with a sign that says "Mug Me!"
By the way, please note that OSRM is a corporate entity who purpose is to sell an insurance product. It is not an insurance collective (coop).
Come on now, that's not what I meant, and you know it.
However, I do think that offering indemnification opened the door to the idea that Linux has patent problems. I think it helped give Microsoft ideas about patents and Linux.
Offering Linux indemnification can only scare away corporate Linux customers. And for OSRM to come out and suggest that Linux has issues with over 200 patents is almost irresponsible.
Why yes, they can. It's legal! And they will. What makes you think they would not?
If MS attempts to use a patent to stifle Linux uptake, the courts can strip the patent from them even if it IS a valid patent.
Very VERY unlikely. The courts over and over side with big business and patent holders. Eola was a fluke.
Suing your customers, or THREATENING to sue your customers is not a proven successful business tactic.
SCO is the exception, and had it not been for the fact that Linux had Red Hat, Novell, and IBM behind it, SCO's threatening may very well have been successful. In other cases, threatening your customers works quite well when you own the market.
IBM has more patents than God, and their business interest is in protecting Linux.
Hog wash. IBM's business is protecting IMB. SCO is a little piss-ant, and IBM knows it can squash them, and have fun doing it. Microsoft would be a much different case. IBM and M$ would have worked out a very friendly financial arrangement with licenses and everything.
I understand how you feel, but your views do not take into account reality. Sorry.
How nice that OSRM, presumably pro-Linux, has provided such potent fodder for Steve Balmer. I've always thought the whole Linux indemnification thing was dangerous, and now we see that is true, it was only a matter of time before it was used against Linux. Thanks, OSRM!
Are you aware that Linux *can not* do automated trans-mapping of sync stack variables? And if it could, it would prob. be command line for God's sake! It's true, tell me it's not.
Some people don't like Windows Update. Many others are just fine with it.
You know, not everyone wants to muck around with dependency hell, which rivals and in many cases surpasses.dll hell.
Not everyone is or wants to be a computer geek, you know. These are some of the basic things that will keep Windows on top for the average user: ease of software / hardware installation (No command line! Don't have to make complicated choices about where to put things! The latest packages, so stuff actually runs!).
This isn't the first time that Tivo has removed and/or changed features on customer purchased devices that didn't help the customer.
Than how is it a surprise? My guess is that this is all covered in the EULA (a contract). Guess you should READ contracts before you AGREE to them, then you will have all the information about the service you are paying for!
You're missing the point. People already bought it for its ability to remove commercials. Now TIVO will change that, and a lot of TIVO customers will have no way of recovering the cost of that purchase.
I'll bet there is something in the EULA about this. You should always READ a contract before you agree to it.
The problem is that the TIVO is NOT free. You paid for that device, and you paid for that service. Getting ads you don't want is a betrayal of the customer.
BS. If you don't like the product, don't buy it. Sounds like you no longer like the TiVo product. Don't buy it.
Of course not. And if you are not doing anything wrong you would not mind if we monitored you through your TV
Don't the Mormons already do this?
By the way, I've read both books sever times, starting when YOU where in grade school. Why do you have this black and white view of things? If Communism and Socialism are your bag, try Cuba (it's not a half bad place, been there) or some Southeast Asian version. You spout rhetoric but your ideas are one dimensional.
If you can not figure out why music / media theft is wrong, you are either in your teens or early 20's, or stupid.
BAD? How can Open Source be BAD?
on
Netscape Reborn?
·
· Score: 1
Don't like it? Than don't use the AOSmell version. But keep in mind, with Open Source (is Mozilla GPL? I don't know, but apparently only GPL is True and Real Open Source), this is what you get. If I want to mutate Firefox into Adware, guess what? It's not a problem. Rock on AOL, rock on Open Source.
Why is this a problem? If you're not out there ripping people off and distributing copyrighted material, you shouldn't have a problem, yes? I'm sure that the Slashdot crowd will get all huffy about this, but in the end, after all the convoluted chest thumping, the bottom line is: don't steal from people.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn. Your right!
Spam, spam, spam... Wonderful spam...
Oh my. What can one say to this!
Like kuro5hin?
I see an excellent opportunity for public sex, sort of like the Mile High Club! I mean, 3 person glass bubbles speeding along congested public thorofares? Can't get any better than that!
Clearly there will be filters, but my guess is that less than a few percent make it through the electronic filters, and most of those are from within the M$ net IP block. The rest, perhaps a few hundred a day, can be processed by 2 or 3 secretaries.
If you want to call that a department, fine. I'm done with this conversation.
It says NOTHING about BG having a department for reading his spam mail; it talks about BG having staff that are "almost" their own department. And, if you Google for other descriptions of the Ballmer talk where he spoke about BG's spam problem, it's even MORE nebulous.
Thank you for your interest in my opinions, Mr Coward.
Thank you for your input.
Remember those SCOunix licenses that Microsoft bought a while back?
Sure. And Microsoft came out looking really bad in the last antitrust go-round; boy did they pay for their sins that time!
For all practical purposes, it is legal for Microsoft to stifle competition with their patents. They will do it flagrantly under the guise of "protecting our intellectual property". And no one will stop them.
Have a nice day...
And to all of this, I say "big deal". I would say "nice M$ troll" but it's actually kind of weak.
By the way, please note that OSRM is a corporate entity who purpose is to sell an insurance product. It is not an insurance collective (coop).
However, I do think that offering indemnification opened the door to the idea that Linux has patent problems. I think it helped give Microsoft ideas about patents and Linux.
Offering Linux indemnification can only scare away corporate Linux customers. And for OSRM to come out and suggest that Linux has issues with over 200 patents is almost irresponsible.
In my opinion.
Why yes, they can. It's legal! And they will. What makes you think they would not?
If MS attempts to use a patent to stifle Linux uptake, the courts can strip the patent from them even if it IS a valid patent.
Very VERY unlikely. The courts over and over side with big business and patent holders. Eola was a fluke.
Suing your customers, or THREATENING to sue your customers is not a proven successful business tactic.
SCO is the exception, and had it not been for the fact that Linux had Red Hat, Novell, and IBM behind it, SCO's threatening may very well have been successful. In other cases, threatening your customers works quite well when you own the market.
IBM has more patents than God, and their business interest is in protecting Linux.
Hog wash. IBM's business is protecting IMB. SCO is a little piss-ant, and IBM knows it can squash them, and have fun doing it. Microsoft would be a much different case. IBM and M$ would have worked out a very friendly financial arrangement with licenses and everything.
I understand how you feel, but your views do not take into account reality. Sorry.
How nice that OSRM, presumably pro-Linux, has provided such potent fodder for Steve Balmer. I've always thought the whole Linux indemnification thing was dangerous, and now we see that is true, it was only a matter of time before it was used against Linux. Thanks, OSRM!
Are you aware that Linux *can not* do automated trans-mapping of sync stack variables? And if it could, it would prob. be command line for God's sake! It's true, tell me it's not.
Why yes, I know that! It's exactly my point! Windows handles it better. Sorry, but it's true. Have a nice day.
Also, "Umm..." is not a word unless you are 12 years old.
You know, not everyone wants to muck around with dependency hell, which rivals and in many cases surpasses .dll hell.
Not everyone is or wants to be a computer geek, you know. These are some of the basic things that will keep Windows on top for the average user: ease of software / hardware installation (No command line! Don't have to make complicated choices about where to put things! The latest packages, so stuff actually runs!).
Than how is it a surprise? My guess is that this is all covered in the EULA (a contract). Guess you should READ contracts before you AGREE to them, then you will have all the information about the service you are paying for!
I'll bet there is something in the EULA about this. You should always READ a contract before you agree to it.
BS. If you don't like the product, don't buy it. Sounds like you no longer like the TiVo product. Don't buy it.
Don't the Mormons already do this?
By the way, I've read both books sever times, starting when YOU where in grade school. Why do you have this black and white view of things? If Communism and Socialism are your bag, try Cuba (it's not a half bad place, been there) or some Southeast Asian version. You spout rhetoric but your ideas are one dimensional.
If you can not figure out why music / media theft is wrong, you are either in your teens or early 20's, or stupid.
Don't like it? Than don't use the AOSmell version. But keep in mind, with Open Source (is Mozilla GPL? I don't know, but apparently only GPL is True and Real Open Source), this is what you get. If I want to mutate Firefox into Adware, guess what? It's not a problem. Rock on AOL, rock on Open Source.
Why is this a problem? If you're not out there ripping people off and distributing copyrighted material, you shouldn't have a problem, yes? I'm sure that the Slashdot crowd will get all huffy about this, but in the end, after all the convoluted chest thumping, the bottom line is: don't steal from people.