I've thought all along that it was not smart of Dell to become just another consumer electronics company in a crowded marketplace. The competition from dirt cheap Chinese manufacturers will only get tougher. Dell needs to differentiate themselves from other companies in some meaningful way, like what they used to do when they provided high quality custom-built machines and excellent support. When they decided they must also be the cheapest in the industry, things fell apart and I know many people that won't buy Dells anymore even though they used to. Trying to commoditize all of their products will be the death of them once the Chinese companies truly catch up. What they need is the opposite, specialization.
In states that have laws against SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), the defendant has more protections than in non-SLAPP states. For one thing, collecting punitive damages from plantiffs found by the court to be engaging in this type of behavior is easier. Lawsuits and legal threats like this are certainly not a new thing; companies building a power plant, steel mill, etc. have used them for years to silence community opposition. Maybe if the penalties were severe enough, it would actually discourage companies from doing it, especially for scummy spyware companies that don't exactly have huge revenues to begin with.
In other words, ZoneAlarm and iptables were designed to provide security. The MS firewall was designed to provide the illusion of security, much like SP2 as a whole.
For every formerly "independent" website that gets bought by a big corporation, 5 more new ones will come online. That's the beauty of the internet, anyone can put up a site. Instead of going to about.com, you'll start going to newsiteoftheweek.com. I don't think the old media establishment will ever be able to buy them all.
If the government wants to go after spammers and/or spyware makers, the best way to do it is not by using new and non-court-tested laws, but by using existing law. Kind of like the way they got Al Capone. Almost all of these scummy fly-by-night operations are in violation of numerous laws already. I'd be willing to bet they don't report all of their income to the IRS. At the very least, they probably don't keep proper records. They might not have all the necessary business licenses or otherwise be in violation of any of the numerous commercial regulations. Perhaps they have some labor law or OSHA violations? Considering how many laws there are that businesses must obey, I can imagine any somewhat competent government prosecutor being able to find something to nail these scummy companies with which doesn't rely on the US Congress being able to successfully define spyware in a way that holds up in court.
I don't know about you, but I'm not about to fund any massive development efforts if I have no recourse whatsoever should an employee of mine decide to sell my source code to a competitor. I agree that software patents in general are a bad idea, but there's no reason why someone should not be able to protect their proprietary work in any way, such as with copyrights.
I don't know of any US laws that have no limitations on punishment. Even the new DMCA copyright laws have a 3 year maximum sentence or something like that. Granted the laws are draconian, but judges don't have quite the unlimited authority that your post implies.
Why is he a troll? Because you disagree with his opinion? People like you are exactly the type who shouldn't moderate and whose moderations I routinely meta-mod as Unfair.
The reason for the low volume is that the shares are mostly held by company insiders, such as executives and the parent company Canopy. They will likely hold for a little while longer, but when they dump it will crash all at once. This is definitely not a good stock for a company outsider to hold, since there have been signs of manipulation for at least the last year and a half.
Um, Outlook has this propensity to want to auto-run attachments. Not Outlook Express, keep in mind, but the commercial, paid-for Outlook that is part of an expensive MS Office suite. Sure, you can tell it not to, but there is no way this feature can be locked down from clueless users who don't know how bad this is. Therefore, strip EXEs, and for god's sake don't use Symantec products. Why do people want to buy the most expensive and least effective products just because of a name brand?
There's nothing wrong with blocking EXEs and specifying that anyone needing to email an EXE must put it in a ZIP file, then have the virus scanner scan within the ZIP. This way some EXE virus can't auto-execute, no matter how badly Outlook wants it to.
Something tells me this is the case at most PHB-run companies. Yay for brand recognition! This is what has allowed Symantec to keep pumping out shitty software for so long.
Exactly. I've noticed over the last couple of years that Symantec's quality and overall value have degraded significantly. It's a shame that they are riding the reputation of the once great Norton name right into the ground. I absolutely refuse to recommend or use Norton Internet Security after I've seen it hose the internet connection of so many machines. It's pretty sad when free software outperforms almost all Symantec products now. How much longer can this dungheap of a company last?
AT&T is not exactly a competitor at the moment. They have never been a competitor. They were designed from the ground up to be a monopoly provider, which they were for many years. Once their monopoly status ended, they coasted by on their reputation for about another 10-15 years, and then once the long distance market became truly competitive (beyond 3 major players) they pretty much fell apart. No division of AT&T has ever actually won over customers based on value, since they've historically been unnecessarily expensive. Without a buyout, AT&T will just wither up and die, as they are already close. No amount of transformation will ever allow AT&T to be a true free market competitor.
It's not the same. The bank never told me that the $20 I withdrew was for my use only and that I can't give it to anyone else. Software should either be sold or rented to the customer, and at the moment it seems that vendors want the best of both worlds, for them that is.
We banned Norton from our IT shop due to the outrageous fees they charge in addition to the horrible installation and configuration problems and complete lack of technical support. Symantec is a company that is living off of the old Norton reputation and it's days are numbered.
Some ISPs obviously find spammers profitable and some don't. That is why spammers tend to get booted until they find an ISP that will offer them a "pink contract", costing a lot more than normal service. Many hosts will accommodate a controversial site or service, for the right price.
Because technical sales consultants make good money trying to pitch this crap to non-technical record executives. Even if it has no realistic way of working, executives will try it anyway because they desperately want to hold onto the notion that they can force the public to keep paying $19.95 for a CD with 2 good songs on it.
These only apply to contracts that are mostly legitimate. A judge can void as much of an agreement as they feel is appropriate. If they feel the entire thing was written in bad faith or with malicious intent, they can void it all, including the severibility part.
Re:How many of us could actually mount a defense?
on
The Basics of EULAs
·
· Score: 1
This concept exists already; it is known as keeping attorneys on retainer. Businesses commonly pay a law firm a monthly fee to handle their legal issues. Of course this would likely not cover major lawsuits or anything of that nature. An individual could do this as well, but it would likely be expensive. There's really no way to get cheap defense from a lawsuit unless you convince people to help your cause, like the ACLU.
Slashdot Mirror
I've thought all along that it was not smart of Dell to become just another consumer electronics company in a crowded marketplace. The competition from dirt cheap Chinese manufacturers will only get tougher. Dell needs to differentiate themselves from other companies in some meaningful way, like what they used to do when they provided high quality custom-built machines and excellent support. When they decided they must also be the cheapest in the industry, things fell apart and I know many people that won't buy Dells anymore even though they used to. Trying to commoditize all of their products will be the death of them once the Chinese companies truly catch up. What they need is the opposite, specialization.
In states that have laws against SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), the defendant has more protections than in non-SLAPP states. For one thing, collecting punitive damages from plantiffs found by the court to be engaging in this type of behavior is easier. Lawsuits and legal threats like this are certainly not a new thing; companies building a power plant, steel mill, etc. have used them for years to silence community opposition. Maybe if the penalties were severe enough, it would actually discourage companies from doing it, especially for scummy spyware companies that don't exactly have huge revenues to begin with.
Not to mention, Overrated is not included in meta-mod, so you can use it to bash someone who's opinion you disagree with and not be punished for it.
In other words, ZoneAlarm and iptables were designed to provide security. The MS firewall was designed to provide the illusion of security, much like SP2 as a whole.
For every formerly "independent" website that gets bought by a big corporation, 5 more new ones will come online. That's the beauty of the internet, anyone can put up a site. Instead of going to about.com, you'll start going to newsiteoftheweek.com. I don't think the old media establishment will ever be able to buy them all.
If the government wants to go after spammers and/or spyware makers, the best way to do it is not by using new and non-court-tested laws, but by using existing law. Kind of like the way they got Al Capone. Almost all of these scummy fly-by-night operations are in violation of numerous laws already. I'd be willing to bet they don't report all of their income to the IRS. At the very least, they probably don't keep proper records. They might not have all the necessary business licenses or otherwise be in violation of any of the numerous commercial regulations. Perhaps they have some labor law or OSHA violations? Considering how many laws there are that businesses must obey, I can imagine any somewhat competent government prosecutor being able to find something to nail these scummy companies with which doesn't rely on the US Congress being able to successfully define spyware in a way that holds up in court.
I don't know about you, but I'm not about to fund any massive development efforts if I have no recourse whatsoever should an employee of mine decide to sell my source code to a competitor. I agree that software patents in general are a bad idea, but there's no reason why someone should not be able to protect their proprietary work in any way, such as with copyrights.
I don't know of any US laws that have no limitations on punishment. Even the new DMCA copyright laws have a 3 year maximum sentence or something like that. Granted the laws are draconian, but judges don't have quite the unlimited authority that your post implies.
Why is he a troll? Because you disagree with his opinion? People like you are exactly the type who shouldn't moderate and whose moderations I routinely meta-mod as Unfair.
The reason for the low volume is that the shares are mostly held by company insiders, such as executives and the parent company Canopy. They will likely hold for a little while longer, but when they dump it will crash all at once. This is definitely not a good stock for a company outsider to hold, since there have been signs of manipulation for at least the last year and a half.
I think the mods are trying to help the dude out by getting him closer to his stated goal of IP banning.
Um, Outlook has this propensity to want to auto-run attachments. Not Outlook Express, keep in mind, but the commercial, paid-for Outlook that is part of an expensive MS Office suite. Sure, you can tell it not to, but there is no way this feature can be locked down from clueless users who don't know how bad this is. Therefore, strip EXEs, and for god's sake don't use Symantec products. Why do people want to buy the most expensive and least effective products just because of a name brand?
There's nothing wrong with blocking EXEs and specifying that anyone needing to email an EXE must put it in a ZIP file, then have the virus scanner scan within the ZIP. This way some EXE virus can't auto-execute, no matter how badly Outlook wants it to.
Something tells me this is the case at most PHB-run companies. Yay for brand recognition! This is what has allowed Symantec to keep pumping out shitty software for so long.
Exactly. I've noticed over the last couple of years that Symantec's quality and overall value have degraded significantly. It's a shame that they are riding the reputation of the once great Norton name right into the ground. I absolutely refuse to recommend or use Norton Internet Security after I've seen it hose the internet connection of so many machines. It's pretty sad when free software outperforms almost all Symantec products now. How much longer can this dungheap of a company last?
AT&T is not exactly a competitor at the moment. They have never been a competitor. They were designed from the ground up to be a monopoly provider, which they were for many years. Once their monopoly status ended, they coasted by on their reputation for about another 10-15 years, and then once the long distance market became truly competitive (beyond 3 major players) they pretty much fell apart. No division of AT&T has ever actually won over customers based on value, since they've historically been unnecessarily expensive. Without a buyout, AT&T will just wither up and die, as they are already close. No amount of transformation will ever allow AT&T to be a true free market competitor.
Don't forget to account for shifting paradigms.
It's not the same. The bank never told me that the $20 I withdrew was for my use only and that I can't give it to anyone else. Software should either be sold or rented to the customer, and at the moment it seems that vendors want the best of both worlds, for them that is.
We banned Norton from our IT shop due to the outrageous fees they charge in addition to the horrible installation and configuration problems and complete lack of technical support. Symantec is a company that is living off of the old Norton reputation and it's days are numbered.
Some ISPs obviously find spammers profitable and some don't. That is why spammers tend to get booted until they find an ISP that will offer them a "pink contract", costing a lot more than normal service. Many hosts will accommodate a controversial site or service, for the right price.
Because technical sales consultants make good money trying to pitch this crap to non-technical record executives. Even if it has no realistic way of working, executives will try it anyway because they desperately want to hold onto the notion that they can force the public to keep paying $19.95 for a CD with 2 good songs on it.
Think of all the new possibilities for the porn industry!
These only apply to contracts that are mostly legitimate. A judge can void as much of an agreement as they feel is appropriate. If they feel the entire thing was written in bad faith or with malicious intent, they can void it all, including the severibility part.
This concept exists already; it is known as keeping attorneys on retainer. Businesses commonly pay a law firm a monthly fee to handle their legal issues. Of course this would likely not cover major lawsuits or anything of that nature. An individual could do this as well, but it would likely be expensive. There's really no way to get cheap defense from a lawsuit unless you convince people to help your cause, like the ACLU.
And this is a bad thing?