Yeah, something along those lines is what I've wanted to implement on our laptops for a long time. Since we support more than one OS, I'd probably implement it in a cross-platform script and make sure the firewall is open. Whenever we get something new, there's always such a big hurry to get it deployed, whereupon it is promptly placed on a shelf and gathers dust. I never got the chance to test a phone-home program. Ah well, someone walked off with a nice laptop.
You can't unbuy your contract when you're already signed. Well, you can, but you'll get screwed twice: Once by the false advertising, and again by early termination fees. I think that's part of the point here. The fellow above found that the product didn't work as advertised, and was further crippled by an update when he had it repaired for an entirely unrelated reason.
Welcome to the strange world of Quantum Intellectual Property Infringment. Consider yourself introduced to the McBride Uncertainty Principle, whereby you may know the exact speed at which SCO's claims are changing, or you may know the exact location of the (currently) infringing property, but you cannot determine both with any precision. The harder the courts look, the more difficult they are making it to find. The courts cannot decide without both a claim and its matching proof, so this is not the path to resolution. The court's only hope is to measure the validity of a quanta of infringement claims, and make a single decision that acts on all of them.
I shoulda had the burrito plate instead. What was I thinking?!
Apparently, you subconsciously established their equivalence: Either choice results in an irritating asshole. Unfortuntely, the one you've chosen won't go away until 2007.
Well, we've established that relationship. What I want to know is when are they going to find the burrito in the SCO case?
[it] is totally outweighed in my book by the need for productivity being held up by dependency Hell, needs to modify source and rebuild, endless configuration that requires pounding a keyboard to dust faster than a data entry clerk, etc.
I don't know where you're drawing your conclusions from. It takes me just as long to configure Windows Server out of the box as a network server as it does Linux. The gains for Linux are greater, because configuration information is more portable than in Windows (it requires the copying of one configuration file to clone a Samba domain master, for example). Modify the source? Are you including patching in that? I guess that's a valid point if you do your patching on the source and recompile. Every major Linux distro has a package management system with upgrade capability. Kind of like Windows Update, but much easier to automate across many machines, due to the lack of a need for additional software or the requirement to sit there and click through the update process on IE. I don't know where you're getting the "endless configuration" stuff from. I configure my Linux machines once. Unless I screwed it up, I don't have to do it again. I've only run across dependency issues on two applications, both were desktop multimedia apps, and only when I tried to compile from source instead of using their pre-compiled binaries.
I take it from your sig that you're sick of having your statements nitpicked by the/. Keepers o' the Faith. It doesn't help when you post something like this. I'm sorry, but my employer's network is soon to be 75% Linux, and I'm not having the problems you describe, and it doesn't require a rocket scientist to do. In fact, it requires the same overall knowledge of architecture and theory of operation that a Windows network does. I'm at a loss why Microsoft-certified techs would have trouble with it, unless they're very weak on the concepts. My own experience with MS cert courses tells me that it's not the way it's being taught. My own experience with Linux shows me it's not that hard to learn. So what is the problem?
OK, I read the text of the patent. It is complete and utter hogwash. It's another one of those 'something+computer' or 'something+Internet' schemes. I know I've called for stupid patent action before, just to make a point, but maybe it's time for something more drastic. Let's take every non-computer, non-Internet patent in the USPTO database, liberally sprinkle the words "computer" and "Internet" in the body of the text, then submit them for patent.
There is prior art here. In fact, it's basically what UPS, FedEx, Airborn Express does already if there's a problem with a delivery. It's basically how the Post Office handles undeliverables. They contact the recipient based on additional information in their database, including home phone, business phone or e-mail.
Just look at the opener to the "invention's" background: The Internet comprises a vast number of computers that are interconnected for the purpose of exchanging information. Various protocols, such as the HyperText Transfer Protocol ("HTTP"), have been defined to aid in this exchange of information." You gotta be kidding me! Remember when you were in grade school, and there was always that one kid who opened his report with "Webster's defines 'x' as...'? That's what this sounds like to me. You know what Bezos and crew invented? They invented a way to transmit bullshit over the Internet.
They apparently have a duty to fulfill. Remember, it isn't invented until Microsoft invents it. By the way, some of us have already been augmenting our pay-per-line telephone service with VoIP, and using other solutions, some open source. But, you won't find those things in Glossy PC Trademagazine (tm), because the developers don't have the cash to pay off the editors. However, every PHB and his cousin will know about MS VoIP, and I'm going to have an uphill battle explaining to them why we shouldn't toss our existing infrastructure for this.
Anyway, it doesn't make a difference whether or not MS enters the battle. What I want are PBX solutions vendors to get out of the 1980s.
Anonymous Reads writes: Despite efforts by a coalition of the willing and intelligent moderators, Slashdot refuses to relenquish control of its Duping System - capable of successfully weeding out repeat stories - to the aforementioned group. Says a Slashdot source: "...Slashdot is committed to taking no action when it sees a repeated story arrive for publication..." When asked about the reason for this, our source commented that efficiency and effectiveness would not suffer. Editor: How long can this go on? This is rediculous!
Exactly, and that can't stand. I propose, instead, that the servers be placed under the control of Robert Mugabe. It solves two problems: 1) They're no longer in the U.S., so you're happy. 2) It shows the difference between "invented here" syndrome and a real egotistical maniac.
Yes, as in prima facie evidence. You have bittorrent? You must be infringing copyright! I'm sure that, sadly, you will be able to find many more examples like this one, no matter where you live.
Probably been as much since after the Civil War, or at least the turn of the 20th century. I don't see why it needs the word "corporate" to qualify it, though. People regularly place large chunks of their wealth in other people's hands, and give up freedoms and rights to a select few because it's convenient. "Why can't someone else do it?" Doesn't matter if that group is a private corporation or not, the issue is that a relatively small group of people have easy access to lots of wealth, and little accountability for their actions.
But where do you think all that money Microsoft has comes from? It comes from companies, from consumers.
Well, those companies aren't getting payments from the IRS, and they aren't picking it from a money tree, so that leaves the consumers as the source of it. But yeah, Microsoft is like a barnacles on the side of the USS OEM, so the consumer isn't actually making a choice. Microsoft's tactics ensures that the consumer's choice costs him money (try getting an OS-free PC from a major OEM and also get a refund for the full OEM license). That's the problem.
It's going to take more than a few OSS solutions to make it go away, because no consumer in his right mind is going to make the choice that costs him more money unless 1) he's got something significantly better, 2) he's really, really ticked off at Microsoft. With either of those choices, the end user actually has to realize what he's getting. Unfortunately, most don't. As long as Microsoft can continue to force OEMs to pay up front, as long as they can dictate the terms of sale of their software after it's been sold, and as long as they can punish wayward OEMs with non-preferential pricing, nothing's going to change.
I hope this isn't the beginning of a smear campaign against everyone involved in technology related to this, discussion of it, technical proofs of concept, and people they merely said "hello" to. I have a feeling that it's going to go beyond the infringers, what with the recent SCOTUS decision. It's a shame if bittorrent were to be relegated to the underground, because I *don't* want to go back to getting 1 byte a second off some crappy HTTP mirror that wastes more bandwidth on ads than downloads.
I have a feeling it's going to go that way, though. Preemptive law enforcement is very trendy these days, despite the fact that it's a huge waste of resources.
I would be willing to bet that, if the American Government passed a law stating that all non-fusion powerplants were to be shut down (in stages) over the next ten years, we'd have fusion power before the time was up.
Software company X sees product Y, buys product Y (or partnerships with company owning Y) and sells it as their own product as a component of company X's product. Happens all the time. The fact that Microsoft is one of the largest doing this, doesn't change the fact.
Yeah, it kinda does. There is no other choice for most OEMs. They're too timid to fight, because Microsoft's non-preferential pricing (it goes both ways) could put them out of business by pushing their price point above the competition. Imagine if that happened elsewhere:
Me: Hey, I'm cancelling my DSL.
Telco: Why?
Me: Cable is a better deal.
Telco: Fuck you! Your basic phone service now costs 30 percent more!
Granted, of course, that there is no option for telephony elsewhere. That's more akin to what Microsoft does, and it certainly isn't commonplace elsewhere, or in such a large market.
As for the whole "geniune" argument, come on. If you buy a used car, you get different treatment than if you bought a dealership's new models. If you legally bought your MS product, you have a genuine MS product, and have no reason to be complaining. If you have an illegal copy, fuck off and die.
Hey, I never said anything about this, so you don't have to get upset about it. I don't have a problem with Microsoft withholding or blocking users of illegal copies from getting updates. I was merely having fun with the meaning of the term "genuine advantage".
I figured he found out how to prevent Microsoft from strong-arming OEMs with "preferential" pricing. I mean, that's their "genuine advantage", isn't it?
Besides, a flat tax *does* hurt the poor. While *your* tax dollars come out of the money you make above and beyond your needs, *their* tax dollars come out of rent money, healthcare, and food.
That would be a fair argument if being poor was a pathogen and not a temporary condition, but I see your point in a different way. How much resources are wasted collecting the taxes from people making $12,000 or less? I bet it barely breaks even, if it does at all. The same thing with old folks that live off of just social security with no money saved. I could never figure out why the government spends the money to send them a check and also collect a return. The SSA knows exactly what they make, so can't the two be combined into an adjusted SS payment?
The above is just my argument for greater efficiency, anyway (remember the "luxury" tax debacle?) Truth be told, I'd like to know what your stance is on local/state gas, cigarette and alcohol taxes. Those hurt just as much as a 10% income tax, yet the poor find a way to afford those things in quantity.
Simply put, the FairTax replaces the way we're currently taxed - based on our annual income - with a tax on goods and services. The FairTax is a voluntary "consumption" tax: the more you buy, the more you pay in taxes, the less you buy, the less you pay in taxes. It's simple.
It's a lot easier for them to prove what you made when income withholding is the norm than it is to prove what you've bought. Think of how difficult it is for states to enforce sales and use taxes. It'd be expensive to make the system work well enough to match the collection percentages of income taxes, because purchasing isn't necessarily regular like a paycheck or a dividend.
I like a flat tax the best. No deductions or credits, and get rid of a whole host of other stupid taxes. If we're going to consider a national sales tax, we might as well consider a flat tax rate and no withholding, instead. The IRS already exists and is organized around a yearly income tax collection. Retrofitting it to monitor and collect sales tax for fifty states doesn't seem like a cost effective solution to me. Just think of the paperwork it'll generate. Instead of one to three income sources per person to verify, you'll have dozens or hundreds of transactions per person, and double the amount of paperwork for sellers of goods and services that are already collecting state sales tax.
As far as TFA is concerned, I don't see how this asinine program is going to save the taxpayers money, unless those state workers are planning on doing it pro bono. Plus it sucks all around. The government is butting into an area already handled by private business, and they'll likely do damage. If they want to stick it to the tax preparers, why don't they just abandon their socialist pipedream, dump a bunch of budgetary baggage and drastically simplify the tax code?
I'm sure the beta contains all the debugging stuff, so I doubt that speed is representative of the final product. Microsoft will conquer the market if they want to. GIMP has no OEM distributors or marketing, so it won't be busting out any time soon. Adobe needs to plan and market for distribution, so that cost is in the product. Microsoft can just mandate that the software comes on all new PCs. Guess which one will be ubiquitous five years from now.
There really needs to be a GPL-ed "web graphics" suite that includes image editing, vector drawing with sound and animation, and with all the plug-ins for the popular browsers. Now would be the time to do it, because when Microsoft does start shoving this down everyone's throat, it will become the defacto standard for web animation.
Anyway, one good thing for Adobe is that there will be less illegally copied versions of Photoshop out there. It seems to me that 9 out 10 people that use it didn't buy it. There's no economic benefit for Adobe, of course, but at least they can't say they're losing money to "pirates".
Re:I get it, but I don't want it
on
A Decade of PHP
·
· Score: 1
Well, if string manipulation is your thing, Apache Rivet would be handy. If you like pain, and read Sendmail config files for fun, then you've always got a friend in Perl.
Sorry, but this isn't something that's exclusive to PHP. I've seen other less-than-perfect, non-PHP code that's full of holes. I've seen plenty of ASP developers make really stupid mistakes, like the ones where it's exploitable by simple altering the URL. Perhaps the opening chapters of any popular web+scripting language documentation should include explicit instructions on how to exploit the flaws. Not only would that provide future developers with ideas on how to protect their hosts, but it would also make poorly-coded systems a big liability.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, something along those lines is what I've wanted to implement on our laptops for a long time. Since we support more than one OS, I'd probably implement it in a cross-platform script and make sure the firewall is open. Whenever we get something new, there's always such a big hurry to get it deployed, whereupon it is promptly placed on a shelf and gathers dust. I never got the chance to test a phone-home program. Ah well, someone walked off with a nice laptop.
You can't unbuy your contract when you're already signed. Well, you can, but you'll get screwed twice: Once by the false advertising, and again by early termination fees. I think that's part of the point here. The fellow above found that the product didn't work as advertised, and was further crippled by an update when he had it repaired for an entirely unrelated reason.
Welcome to the strange world of Quantum Intellectual Property Infringment. Consider yourself introduced to the McBride Uncertainty Principle, whereby you may know the exact speed at which SCO's claims are changing, or you may know the exact location of the (currently) infringing property, but you cannot determine both with any precision. The harder the courts look, the more difficult they are making it to find. The courts cannot decide without both a claim and its matching proof, so this is not the path to resolution. The court's only hope is to measure the validity of a quanta of infringement claims, and make a single decision that acts on all of them.
Well, we've established that relationship. What I want to know is when are they going to find the burrito in the SCO case?
I take it from your sig that you're sick of having your statements nitpicked by the
OK, I read the text of the patent. It is complete and utter hogwash. It's another one of those 'something+computer' or 'something+Internet' schemes. I know I've called for stupid patent action before, just to make a point, but maybe it's time for something more drastic. Let's take every non-computer, non-Internet patent in the USPTO database, liberally sprinkle the words "computer" and "Internet" in the body of the text, then submit them for patent.
There is prior art here. In fact, it's basically what UPS, FedEx, Airborn Express does already if there's a problem with a delivery. It's basically how the Post Office handles undeliverables. They contact the recipient based on additional information in their database, including home phone, business phone or e-mail.
Just look at the opener to the "invention's" background: The Internet comprises a vast number of computers that are interconnected for the purpose of exchanging information. Various protocols, such as the HyperText Transfer Protocol ("HTTP"), have been defined to aid in this exchange of information." You gotta be kidding me! Remember when you were in grade school, and there was always that one kid who opened his report with "Webster's defines 'x' as...'? That's what this sounds like to me. You know what Bezos and crew invented? They invented a way to transmit bullshit over the Internet.
Mugabe is a convenient example. He's in the news all the time now, so I don't think anyone could not know his name.
They apparently have a duty to fulfill. Remember, it isn't invented until Microsoft invents it. By the way, some of us have already been augmenting our pay-per-line telephone service with VoIP, and using other solutions, some open source. But, you won't find those things in Glossy PC Trademagazine (tm), because the developers don't have the cash to pay off the editors. However, every PHB and his cousin will know about MS VoIP, and I'm going to have an uphill battle explaining to them why we shouldn't toss our existing infrastructure for this.
Anyway, it doesn't make a difference whether or not MS enters the battle. What I want are PBX solutions vendors to get out of the 1980s.
Slashdot: Slashdot Far From Dupe-Free
Anonymous Reads writes: Despite efforts by a coalition of the willing and intelligent moderators, Slashdot refuses to relenquish control of its Duping System - capable of successfully weeding out repeat stories - to the aforementioned group. Says a Slashdot source: "...Slashdot is committed to taking no action when it sees a repeated story arrive for publication..." When asked about the reason for this, our source commented that efficiency and effectiveness would not suffer. Editor: How long can this go on? This is rediculous!
(I kid, folks. The dupes don't bother me.)
Exactly, and that can't stand. I propose, instead, that the servers be placed under the control of Robert Mugabe. It solves two problems: 1) They're no longer in the U.S., so you're happy. 2) It shows the difference between "invented here" syndrome and a real egotistical maniac.
Yes, as in prima facie evidence. You have bittorrent? You must be infringing copyright! I'm sure that, sadly, you will be able to find many more examples like this one, no matter where you live.
Probably been as much since after the Civil War, or at least the turn of the 20th century. I don't see why it needs the word "corporate" to qualify it, though. People regularly place large chunks of their wealth in other people's hands, and give up freedoms and rights to a select few because it's convenient. "Why can't someone else do it?" Doesn't matter if that group is a private corporation or not, the issue is that a relatively small group of people have easy access to lots of wealth, and little accountability for their actions.
It's going to take more than a few OSS solutions to make it go away, because no consumer in his right mind is going to make the choice that costs him more money unless 1) he's got something significantly better, 2) he's really, really ticked off at Microsoft. With either of those choices, the end user actually has to realize what he's getting. Unfortunately, most don't. As long as Microsoft can continue to force OEMs to pay up front, as long as they can dictate the terms of sale of their software after it's been sold, and as long as they can punish wayward OEMs with non-preferential pricing, nothing's going to change.
I hope this isn't the beginning of a smear campaign against everyone involved in technology related to this, discussion of it, technical proofs of concept, and people they merely said "hello" to. I have a feeling that it's going to go beyond the infringers, what with the recent SCOTUS decision. It's a shame if bittorrent were to be relegated to the underground, because I *don't* want to go back to getting 1 byte a second off some crappy HTTP mirror that wastes more bandwidth on ads than downloads.
I have a feeling it's going to go that way, though. Preemptive law enforcement is very trendy these days, despite the fact that it's a huge waste of resources.
Me: Hey, I'm cancelling my DSL.
Telco: Why?
Me: Cable is a better deal.
Telco: Fuck you! Your basic phone service now costs 30 percent more!
Granted, of course, that there is no option for telephony elsewhere. That's more akin to what Microsoft does, and it certainly isn't commonplace elsewhere, or in such a large market.Hey, I never said anything about this, so you don't have to get upset about it. I don't have a problem with Microsoft withholding or blocking users of illegal copies from getting updates. I was merely having fun with the meaning of the term "genuine advantage".
I can't think of any other companies that were handed an entire market segment by the company that produced it.
I figured he found out how to prevent Microsoft from strong-arming OEMs with "preferential" pricing. I mean, that's their "genuine advantage", isn't it?
It died on the Senate floor because they didn't include the "Evil Bit" provision.
The above is just my argument for greater efficiency, anyway (remember the "luxury" tax debacle?) Truth be told, I'd like to know what your stance is on local/state gas, cigarette and alcohol taxes. Those hurt just as much as a 10% income tax, yet the poor find a way to afford those things in quantity.
I like a flat tax the best. No deductions or credits, and get rid of a whole host of other stupid taxes. If we're going to consider a national sales tax, we might as well consider a flat tax rate and no withholding, instead. The IRS already exists and is organized around a yearly income tax collection. Retrofitting it to monitor and collect sales tax for fifty states doesn't seem like a cost effective solution to me. Just think of the paperwork it'll generate. Instead of one to three income sources per person to verify, you'll have dozens or hundreds of transactions per person, and double the amount of paperwork for sellers of goods and services that are already collecting state sales tax.
As far as TFA is concerned, I don't see how this asinine program is going to save the taxpayers money, unless those state workers are planning on doing it pro bono. Plus it sucks all around. The government is butting into an area already handled by private business, and they'll likely do damage. If they want to stick it to the tax preparers, why don't they just abandon their socialist pipedream, dump a bunch of budgetary baggage and drastically simplify the tax code?
I wonder if he was a relative of that gentleman who asked Babbage the famous question.
I'm sure the beta contains all the debugging stuff, so I doubt that speed is representative of the final product. Microsoft will conquer the market if they want to. GIMP has no OEM distributors or marketing, so it won't be busting out any time soon. Adobe needs to plan and market for distribution, so that cost is in the product. Microsoft can just mandate that the software comes on all new PCs. Guess which one will be ubiquitous five years from now.
There really needs to be a GPL-ed "web graphics" suite that includes image editing, vector drawing with sound and animation, and with all the plug-ins for the popular browsers. Now would be the time to do it, because when Microsoft does start shoving this down everyone's throat, it will become the defacto standard for web animation.
Anyway, one good thing for Adobe is that there will be less illegally copied versions of Photoshop out there. It seems to me that 9 out 10 people that use it didn't buy it. There's no economic benefit for Adobe, of course, but at least they can't say they're losing money to "pirates".
Well, if string manipulation is your thing, Apache Rivet would be handy. If you like pain, and read Sendmail config files for fun, then you've always got a friend in Perl.
Sorry, but this isn't something that's exclusive to PHP. I've seen other less-than-perfect, non-PHP code that's full of holes. I've seen plenty of ASP developers make really stupid mistakes, like the ones where it's exploitable by simple altering the URL. Perhaps the opening chapters of any popular web+scripting language documentation should include explicit instructions on how to exploit the flaws. Not only would that provide future developers with ideas on how to protect their hosts, but it would also make poorly-coded systems a big liability.