Hehehe... another MS plant on Slashdot. He even comes up with the classic, " I am a user and advocate for Free Software" lead in. The rest of the post, however, is cut-n-paste straight off a MS web page.
change the behavior of the popup-blocker from actually stopping popups, to having the window open without displaying it
Nice try, but they'd probably find a way to put a "[Click HERE to Continue]" button on the popup, which you would have to poke before the rest of the site came up, sort of like how Juno originally did its advertisement supported email service.
Most Slashdot readers are, of course, looking at this decision from a strong technical point of view. It is clear that this decision is going to hurt our favorite technology, and is a bad thing for the Technology sector. We tend to draw parallels from other technology cases, such as the breakup of AT&T, and the outcome of that case.
My question however, is, if you look at this decision from a Business perspective, how does it fall? Is this decision in line with existing case law when it comes to dealing with individuals and corporations who have come to exercise huge amounts of power over their various sectors of the economy? Was this decision made with the intent of strengthening the overall business climate of the US, especially given the current state of the world economy? Will it make perfect sense to the average CEO?
Extremadura is distributing free CDs, which seems relatively harmless when compared to what happens here in Toronto [tdsb.on.ca].
Nice Web site, but I don't get your point. I didn't read through the entire site, but I didn't see any particular indication that it was created for, or limited to, or espoused the exclusive use of Windows software.
> I have a feeling that whatever security initiatives MS is working on, certainly aren't aimed at hte average home user.
OK... and since when is my data, on my home computer less important than that on some corporate server?
Just because I can't afford to cough up another $10,000 in security costs, or even another $100, does that mean MS shouldn't give me all their latest fixes in a timely manner? Do you really want another CODE RED worm making its way around hundreds of thousands of home based web servers, all because MS thought it could make money off of selling security patches? Should my system be left wide open to be raped by any script kiddie who can figure out how to download the latest root kit for my Win98 box, because MS doesn't think it's profitable for them to provide patches for that discontinued product?
The trick is, will the US Supreme Court (or the CA court for that matter) decide that the limitations imposed by the CA law are unconstitutional. The spammers have been saying that restrictions are an illegal limitation of their first ammendment Free Speach rights. Obviously, the state of California is saying that this is a matter of commerce and consumer protection, not speach.
Once the courts have decided which it is, then other states are very likely to follow suite, one way or the other.
(An interesting point is, even though the SPAM originates from outside of CA, it is directly affecting CA residents, and their property (equipment at ISP's, etc). CA can't fine someone for sending me a SPAM in New York, but once it crosses the CA state line, it's in their jurisdiction. Once the originator is offshore, then things get more complicated...)
> However, its one spammer, in one state, in one country
It's called legal precedent. In other words, once you've gone through the pain and hassle of pushing one of these through court, then it makes it a whole lot easier to get the next one.
As to the "just one," I admit I haven't read the article on this one, but remember that these are usually SPAM services that put these things out. In other words, this isn't just one message we're talking about, but potentially thousands of "clients", each one with hundreds of thousands of individual emails to users in California. Sure, knock one out and a hundred more jump in to fill the gap, but if you can prove that it will cost you money to spam CA residents, then people will start thinking twice about all those get rich quick messages. A lot of other states are watching this case, and if CA can make it stick, there will be other states to follow.
Hey -- if I had any moderator points, I'd have given this a +1 Funny
Actually, I agree that there is certainly more going on here than meets the eye. I'm sure that MSNBC goes out of its way to appear unbiased and objective (as if any source of news is ever truly "unbiased"), especially when covering technical issues. I wouldn't be surprised if they are snickering under their breath, hoping that the whole venture fails. However, if they are, then they have done a better job than usual in this article in hiding their usually thinly veiled derision.
I am still concerned about some if the issues with Lindows -- issues which have already been rehashed add nauseum in this forum. However, I still think these computers are still a step in the right direction, and appear to be making progress quickly. I still hope they catch on.
When MSNBC publishes a glowing article like this, you have to start thinking it's going to take off. It still doesn't sound like a computer that I'd be interested in buying, but I know a LOT of non-technical people for whom this would be a perfectly acceptable solution.
I know now what I'm going to start suggesting to people who are looking for a "simple" setup. Sure, I'll probably end up giving them free support and doing a lot of hand-holding when things break, but I guess that's the price of being on the front lines, fighting for what you believe in.
Jeeze... Just went to check my Apache logs to see if there was any indication of this worm on my servers (all clean), and I'm STILL getting plugged by a couple dozen freaking Code Red hits a day! Is there any way to get these cleaned up, or are we going to be putting up with winnt/system32/cmd.exe requests until the end of time?
Larry, I like your answer to this. The WWJD craze always bothered me. I suppose it has some merit, but it comes across as trite. Chances are, He would do the last thing we would expect, mostly because He's, "writing the story from the middle."
Variables used to determine this is price, quality, ease of use,...
How about, security, accountability, ability to interoperate with other software, long term viability of both the software and the support structure? None of these can be guaranteed if the interfaces and file formats are secret, or patented and available only to a small subset of the population.
Corporations and the Government are not the same thing. They work according to different rules. Corporations exist to maximize profit and serve the shareholders. Governments (in theory at least) exist to serve the people. Part of that service involves safeguarding the information it gathers, while at the same time being open and transparent in all its activities.
And you credit me with more political sophistication than I have, so far.
Hummm... "Sophistication" implies that you understand the subject involved. In my book, people who claim to "understand" politics are standing on the same ground as those who claim to "understand" women. No, I don't think they really understand what is going on. Rather, they have deduced a large enough set of stimulous-response reactions in order to influence the process in question... at least part of the time. Some of this skill may be innate, but most is learned by trial and (sometimes painful) error.
Bruce, sophistication or no, it seems to me you have a pretty good handle on what's going on, and can see more than you may give yourself credit for.
I just bought a computer for my son from Dell, and by dropping the option for MS Office Professional, I saved close to $400. Now, that's Dell setting prices, not MS, but it still saves me a bundle. My son (just entering college) seems perfectly happy using OO.
A strawman argument Wow today's technology is cheaper and runs faster~~!!
Well, yes and no.
I think the important point to make here is that, with the extremely high price of those old Unix servers (or the new ones that they would likely be replaced with), the company couldn't afford to replace them with new hardware and software. So, even though the major portion of that increase in performance was due to the hardware, it was the Linux OS and applications sitting on top of those shiny new boxes that made it possible.
Also, their conclusion was based on the fact that the recipients knew how many other people were included in the CC: field. The more people there were, the less likely they were to respond. All pretty intuitive, but hardly applicable to email that is addressed to hundreds of thousands of people.
Gee... I'd hate to see the CC: field for that test message...
If we let them get away with this, it's one fast ride down a greased up slippery slope to control of information on the net.
Please check to see that your brain is in gear before letting your mouth run off.
The FTC isn't saying anything about how these corporations can conduct their business, or how they do their rankings, or who they accept money from. They aren't forbidding search engines from making money, or placing some sites ahead of others based on how much they have been paid.
All they are saying is that, when the results are presented to the customer, "matches" which are made primarily based on sponsorship are simply marked as such, so that the customer is able to make an informed choice.
The more the government interferes with business, particularily online business the less of a free market it actually is.
Sorry to break it to you, but the Government is in the business of regulating the marketplace, and does it all the time! Think about what the SEC does. They regulate how businesses account for their costs and expenses, and how they report them to their investors. What about debacles like Enron, and more recently, WorldCom. Look at Microsoft for crying out loud! They are all being hounded by the government for various illegal acts -- i.e., acting outside of the bounds of government regulations on how one carries on an honest business.
Businesses, on their own, will do everything they can to distort the truth, manipulate customers, control information, drive smaller operators out of business, and do whatever it takes to make more money. If you want to see an example of what it would be like if there was no "government regulation" in business, just look back to the Feudal system in Europe during the Dark Ages. For the most part, the "job" of the government when regulating businesses is to keep them honest.
Obviously, there are plenty of times when government oversteps this simle rule, or when they create loopholes such that the corporations are allowed to run roughshod over the intent of the law, but to say that the government has no business touching the market is to misunderstand the fundamental role of the government in keeping us from destroying each other.
I admit, I haven't read the article yet, but if it's anythng like what is done at Google, then they are not saying that sponsored links aren't allowed, but that they have to be clearly marked as such.
I have to say I really like the way Google does sponsored links. They are right there, up at the top, clearly marked. That way, if I want to go to the sponsoring site, I can, but with the full knowledge that they were probably not selected because they were the "best match" to my query, but because they paid for the spot. If I go there, then I'm probably looking to buy something in the first place, and I'll be much more likely to spend my money.
On the other hand, if I don't want to go to a site that will most likely be wanting to sell me something, then I don't have to.
... it is not mandatory for you to use new Windows...
Well, until the system becomes ubiquitous, and required for authorization to do anything outside of the confines of your little box. See this article at The Register for some interesting thoughts on this.
Slashdot Mirror
Gotta love those "grass root advocacy" attempts.
Nice try, but they'd probably find a way to put a "[Click HERE to Continue]" button on the popup, which you would have to poke before the rest of the site came up, sort of like how Juno originally did its advertisement supported email service.
My question however, is, if you look at this decision from a Business perspective, how does it fall? Is this decision in line with existing case law when it comes to dealing with individuals and corporations who have come to exercise huge amounts of power over their various sectors of the economy? Was this decision made with the intent of strengthening the overall business climate of the US, especially given the current state of the world economy? Will it make perfect sense to the average CEO?
Nice Web site, but I don't get your point. I didn't read through the entire site, but I didn't see any particular indication that it was created for, or limited to, or espoused the exclusive use of Windows software.
So, what did happen in Toronto?
OK... and since when is my data, on my home computer less important than that on some corporate server?
Just because I can't afford to cough up another $10,000 in security costs, or even another $100, does that mean MS shouldn't give me all their latest fixes in a timely manner? Do you really want another CODE RED worm making its way around hundreds of thousands of home based web servers, all because MS thought it could make money off of selling security patches? Should my system be left wide open to be raped by any script kiddie who can figure out how to download the latest root kit for my Win98 box, because MS doesn't think it's profitable for them to provide patches for that discontinued product?
Insightful??? I'd rate this one as a Troll. Since when is Free Speech "outdated"?
Once the courts have decided which it is, then other states are very likely to follow suite, one way or the other.
(An interesting point is, even though the SPAM originates from outside of CA, it is directly affecting CA residents, and their property (equipment at ISP's, etc). CA can't fine someone for sending me a SPAM in New York, but once it crosses the CA state line, it's in their jurisdiction. Once the originator is offshore, then things get more complicated...)
It's called legal precedent. In other words, once you've gone through the pain and hassle of pushing one of these through court, then it makes it a whole lot easier to get the next one.
As to the "just one," I admit I haven't read the article on this one, but remember that these are usually SPAM services that put these things out. In other words, this isn't just one message we're talking about, but potentially thousands of "clients", each one with hundreds of thousands of individual emails to users in California. Sure, knock one out and a hundred more jump in to fill the gap, but if you can prove that it will cost you money to spam CA residents, then people will start thinking twice about all those get rich quick messages. A lot of other states are watching this case, and if CA can make it stick, there will be other states to follow.
Actually, I agree that there is certainly more going on here than meets the eye. I'm sure that MSNBC goes out of its way to appear unbiased and objective (as if any source of news is ever truly "unbiased"), especially when covering technical issues. I wouldn't be surprised if they are snickering under their breath, hoping that the whole venture fails. However, if they are, then they have done a better job than usual in this article in hiding their usually thinly veiled derision.
I am still concerned about some if the issues with Lindows -- issues which have already been rehashed add nauseum in this forum. However, I still think these computers are still a step in the right direction, and appear to be making progress quickly. I still hope they catch on.
I know now what I'm going to start suggesting to people who are looking for a "simple" setup. Sure, I'll probably end up giving them free support and doing a lot of hand-holding when things break, but I guess that's the price of being on the front lines, fighting for what you believe in.
Jeeze... Just went to check my Apache logs to see if there was any indication of this worm on my servers (all clean), and I'm STILL getting plugged by a couple dozen freaking Code Red hits a day! Is there any way to get these cleaned up, or are we going to be putting up with winnt/system32/cmd.exe requests until the end of time?
Thanks OSDN
Larry, I like your answer to this. The WWJD craze always bothered me. I suppose it has some merit, but it comes across as trite. Chances are, He would do the last thing we would expect, mostly because He's, "writing the story from the middle."
How about, security, accountability, ability to interoperate with other software, long term viability of both the software and the support structure? None of these can be guaranteed if the interfaces and file formats are secret, or patented and available only to a small subset of the population.
Corporations and the Government are not the same thing. They work according to different rules. Corporations exist to maximize profit and serve the shareholders. Governments (in theory at least) exist to serve the people. Part of that service involves safeguarding the information it gathers, while at the same time being open and transparent in all its activities.
Hummm... "Sophistication" implies that you understand the subject involved. In my book, people who claim to "understand" politics are standing on the same ground as those who claim to "understand" women. No, I don't think they really understand what is going on. Rather, they have deduced a large enough set of stimulous-response reactions in order to influence the process in question... at least part of the time. Some of this skill may be innate, but most is learned by trial and (sometimes painful) error.
Bruce, sophistication or no, it seems to me you have a pretty good handle on what's going on, and can see more than you may give yourself credit for.
I just bought a computer for my son from Dell, and by dropping the option for MS Office Professional, I saved close to $400. Now, that's Dell setting prices, not MS, but it still saves me a bundle. My son (just entering college) seems perfectly happy using OO.
(When do they start handing out the free MS goodies?)
I think the important point to make here is that, with the extremely high price of those old Unix servers (or the new ones that they would likely be replaced with), the company couldn't afford to replace them with new hardware and software. So, even though the major portion of that increase in performance was due to the hardware, it was the Linux OS and applications sitting on top of those shiny new boxes that made it possible.
Humm... Before, we were a cancer. Now, we're a puppy. Well, that's a step up... I think.
So, when do we all get together and start throwing shipments of DVD's into the Boston Harbor??
Gee... I'd hate to see the CC: field for that test message...
Please check to see that your brain is in gear before letting your mouth run off.
The FTC isn't saying anything about how these corporations can conduct their business, or how they do their rankings, or who they accept money from. They aren't forbidding search engines from making money, or placing some sites ahead of others based on how much they have been paid.
All they are saying is that, when the results are presented to the customer, "matches" which are made primarily based on sponsorship are simply marked as such, so that the customer is able to make an informed choice.
Sorry to break it to you, but the Government is in the business of regulating the marketplace, and does it all the time! Think about what the SEC does. They regulate how businesses account for their costs and expenses, and how they report them to their investors. What about debacles like Enron, and more recently, WorldCom. Look at Microsoft for crying out loud! They are all being hounded by the government for various illegal acts -- i.e., acting outside of the bounds of government regulations on how one carries on an honest business.
Businesses, on their own, will do everything they can to distort the truth, manipulate customers, control information, drive smaller operators out of business, and do whatever it takes to make more money. If you want to see an example of what it would be like if there was no "government regulation" in business, just look back to the Feudal system in Europe during the Dark Ages. For the most part, the "job" of the government when regulating businesses is to keep them honest.
Obviously, there are plenty of times when government oversteps this simle rule, or when they create loopholes such that the corporations are allowed to run roughshod over the intent of the law, but to say that the government has no business touching the market is to misunderstand the fundamental role of the government in keeping us from destroying each other.
I admit, I haven't read the article yet, but if it's anythng like what is done at Google, then they are not saying that sponsored links aren't allowed, but that they have to be clearly marked as such.
On the other hand, if I don't want to go to a site that will most likely be wanting to sell me something, then I don't have to.
Seems like it's the best solution all way round.
Well, until the system becomes ubiquitous, and required for authorization to do anything outside of the confines of your little box. See this article at The Register for some interesting thoughts on this.