What do you really own with your "White Album"? You own the physical media and the right to use that media under specific circumstances. The specific circumstances here are a private performance of the work encoded on the media. To phrase it another way, you don't own the music, you own the right to play the music for yourself from the record you bought. That's all.
This is at the heart of the Napster controversy. People say, "Why pay again for something I already own?", when in fact they DON'T own what they think they do.
Using the software analogy, its like expecting to get a free Windows version of something just because you bought the Mac version, but you don't use your Mac anymore.
It's just bad design. It doesn't appear intentional in the 2 cases frm Top9 that I checked: Home Depot and GurlPages. The "lock in" seems to come from the myriad redirects that occur as their systems check your session status and route you around. It's not fair to say this is a deliberate technique (at least for these 2).
The correct breakup is: 1. OS 2. Apps (Office, games, etc) 3. Internet (MSN, IE, etc) 4. Tools (Visual Studio, MSDN, etc)
All 4 of these pillars support the others in maintaining the monopoly. Breaking up along these lines would place MS in direct, level competition with other established companies:
1. OS (Linux, BE, Unix, etc) 2. Apps (lots of examples) 3. Net (AOL, Netscape, Opera) 4. Tools (Symantec, Borland)
Your only hope is to disguise your identity. Post your code through anonymous sources, remove all traces of your name for the system, etc. They can't sue you if they can't find you.
Mitnick is not a poor, helpless member of the computing community who got caught in the cogs of the unfeeling American Justice Machine. He is a criminal who used computers to commit crimes. He was a fairly poor one, based on my reading of the accounts of his exploits.
If he was imprisoned unjustly, or denied due process, that's a whole separate issue, and should be handled like any other case of that kind (of which there are sadly a great number).
I don't feel that Slashdot is the forum for an interview. What interest does his case hold to Slashdot, as opposed to all the other criminals around the country who were released at the same time?
Why should we be interested in this guy? He's a cracker, and a pretty poor one at that.
He's the computer equivalent to the shaking junkie who sticks a gun in the face of a 7-Eleven clerk to get money for a fix, then waves to the security camera on the way out. He left a trail a mile wide, and couldn't stop his illegal activities even when he knew the authorities were after him.
Why is he being portrayed as some kind of Digital Martyr?
On my last head down coding project, I pretty much listened to Stevie Ray Vaughn, Chris Duate Group, and Damon Fowler group non-stop for 6 weeks. For a litle variety, I threw in some Metallica and Queensryche (for problems requiring that extra bit of inspiration).
Slashdot Mirror
What do you really own with your "White Album"? You own the physical media and the right to use that media under specific circumstances. The specific circumstances here are a private performance of the work encoded on the media. To phrase it another way, you don't own the music, you own the right to play the music for yourself from the record you bought. That's all.
This is at the heart of the Napster controversy. People say, "Why pay again for something I already own?", when in fact they DON'T own what they think they do.
Using the software analogy, its like expecting to get a free Windows version of something just because you bought the Mac version, but you don't use your Mac anymore.
It's just bad design. It doesn't appear intentional in the 2 cases frm Top9 that I checked: Home Depot and GurlPages. The "lock in" seems to come from the myriad redirects that occur as their systems check your session status and route you around. It's not fair to say this is a deliberate technique (at least for these 2).
The correct breakup is:
1. OS
2. Apps (Office, games, etc)
3. Internet (MSN, IE, etc)
4. Tools (Visual Studio, MSDN, etc)
All 4 of these pillars support the others in maintaining the monopoly. Breaking up along these lines would place MS in direct, level competition with other established companies:
1. OS (Linux, BE, Unix, etc)
2. Apps (lots of examples)
3. Net (AOL, Netscape, Opera)
4. Tools (Symantec, Borland)
Your only hope is to disguise your identity. Post your code through anonymous sources, remove all traces of your name for the system, etc. They can't sue you if they can't find you.
Mitnick is not a poor, helpless member of the computing community who got caught in the cogs of the unfeeling American Justice Machine. He is a criminal who used computers to commit crimes. He was a fairly poor one, based on my reading of the accounts of his exploits.
If he was imprisoned unjustly, or denied due process, that's a whole separate issue, and should be handled like any other case of that kind (of which there are sadly a great number).
I don't feel that Slashdot is the forum for an interview. What interest does his case hold to Slashdot, as opposed to all the other criminals around the country who were released at the same time?
Why should we be interested in this guy? He's a cracker, and a pretty poor one at that.
He's the computer equivalent to the shaking junkie who sticks a gun in the face of a 7-Eleven clerk to get money for a fix, then waves to the security camera on the way out. He left a trail a mile wide, and couldn't stop his illegal activities even when he knew the authorities were after him.
Why is he being portrayed as some kind of Digital Martyr?
On my last head down coding project, I pretty much listened to Stevie Ray Vaughn, Chris Duate Group, and Damon Fowler group non-stop for 6 weeks. For a litle variety, I threw in some Metallica and Queensryche (for problems requiring that extra bit of inspiration).