Yeah, there were a lot of useful little things like that you could do to make your life easier. On the other hand, you've never had to with consoles. They don't tend to need updated software or new hardware or to be properly configured for things to run properly, because they just work because they're all the same (No, I don't need people to point out exceptions, thanks; I have an N64 with the memory expansion, and that was an (arguably) stupid idea. Developers hardly use things like that if they aren't included with the console. See also: PS2 hard drive). Of course, one of the tradeoffs is that you've never been able to get a fancy new video card for them, for example, and until recently, you haven't been able to get new content or mods for games, while at least as far back as things like Doom, there was a pretty good community of people trading WAD files.
Lets also not forget that the best gaming computer also has many other uses. Can you browse the web on a console? Track your savings and mortgage accounts? Write email? IM others? Write a book report, contract, or recipe? Do your taxes on a console? Make your own games? Edit music and video?
See, that's the value in a computer over a console that articles like this always ignore. Computers sometimes require extra work, but for the most part, they ARE plug and play now. In DOS, you had to edit files and pick and choose which drivers to load. Now you turn off the computer, insert the new device, turn it back on and it asks you for the disk. Pretty simple if you ask me.
When the console is 'expired' that is nothign you can do for it. You put it away and it collects dust in the closet. After all, how many consoles do you have room for on one TV anyway? With a computer, you may have to buy a new video card and you're good for a few more years. Buy a few more components (MB, RAM, CPU) in those couple of years and your good for a long while. Far cheaper than buying everything again.
Now that's just not even true. The average time between console generations since the original NES came out has been about five years, which is plenty of time to get a lot of use out of each set of hardware, just like you don't need to upgrade your PC constantly, either.
Then once the new console is realease, the old is worthless and collects dust. Game development for the older platform is promptly stopped. Also the prices of consoles have been steadly rising to revile that of mid end computers. When your PC is obsolete, many of the parts can be moved to the new system. If you don't want to do that, you still have something that can do email and internet. It doesn't become totally worthless.
There's no need to talk-down - being patronizing does not necessarily mean you have a greater understanding of the issue.
Hopefully talking down will help you realize what a silly position you're taking.
What doesn't fit is your subjective view of "unwanted".
Its subjective because its up to the property owner to determine what is unwanted.
Any criminal conviction (except for the very few laws involving "strict liability") involves two components - the actus reus and the mens rea, or, the guilty act and the guilty mind. And it's the issue of guilty mind with which I have contention. Trespass is not a strict-liability law, so it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that (as well as performing the act) the perpetrator was aware that their use of the plaintiff's property was "unwanted" by the plaintiff.
No, the trespass law in question doesn't seem to stipulate that. Indeed, I would say that the law assumes that any use without permission must be assumed to be unwanted use. Personally I would love to see tougher trespass laws; for example, I have a fence around my entire property. From that, it should be clear I don't want people on it.. yet I still have to post a sign (this is in another state from the one in the article).
If the spammer was really worried about trespass, he would have taken effort to find out if sending spam to this person was an 'unwanted use of private property.' Any reasonable court (and yes, most are) would say a message asking that would not fall under trespass, since they are making a reasonable attempt to find out if the person wishes to receive spam. Since the spammer didn't do this, and spammed away, they are guilty of uwanted use of private property, or in this case, trespass, since that is a definition of trespass in the state.
[ignoring rest of post, as I've covered that]
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't understand the concept of trespass(although, like just about everyone on/., IANAL except in my own armchair), it's that I also understand the legal requirements to fulfill that concept to a legal standard.
As do I. The law seems pretty clearly written in this case. The spamming was 'unwanted use of private property' and trespass is clearly defined to have that meaning. Therefore the spamming was trespass.
I'm really not trying to say that it shouldn't be viewed as gravely as trespass, but legally speaking, it just isn't all there. That's why I think it's a strange and foolish thing for the court to say. If the state really views this crime as trespass, why not convict it as such?
Sure it is. The law is clear in this case. Obviously the state really views the crime as trespass, which is why the spammer was found guilty of trespass!
Uh, well, WinXP was released in 2001, so its only about a year and a half newer than Win2K. I really don't see a huge difference between running a 6.5 year old OS and running a 5 year old OS.
I dunno perhaps because there are a lot of changes in XP; namely that SP2 adds a bunch of stuff and fixes a huge amount of features. At the very least because they actually still sell XP.
So? Cars aren't very much like computer operating systems.
Yes. For some reason computer users expect their computer to be supported until the user dies of old age. They also expect free fixes to boot. Just because they expect it though does not mean its reasonable.
Either you're very, very lucky, or you're very new to it. It's probably 3 years or so since I gave up on PC gaming.
I've been gaming on the computer since before Wolf3D. As I said, its not just me either. None of my friends have been having all the problems you describe.
I'm far more technically adept than most -- and have been gaming since the 8 bit era (when games would "just work") and through the DOS era when you had to build boot floppies of various kinds to allow games to fit in their 640KB -- but I've never owned a PC where gaming was reliable.
Maybe you're not as technically adept as you think. If you were, you'd have a boot menu that properly setup the dos game by not loading drivers not needed. My gaming experience on the PC has been very reliable, such that I gave up consoles years ago (after the SNES).
Come on, either you're fabulously rich and constantly ahead of the hardware curve, or you've bought games that are too chuggy to enjoy on your hardware.
Its a myth that you need to upgrade your computer every year (not that current consoles last at most 3 years, before the next gen comes out). I stay one step behind the latest cutting edge machine, and can play all modern games just fine. I spent $150 in 2004 to upgrade my video card in my three year old computer to play doom 3. No, it wasn't set at the highest detail (and when doom was released, I don't think any computer could set the detail that high at the time0, but it was pretty high up.
As a matter of policy, Microsoft generally doesn't fix bugs in already released software, with the exceptions of publicly known security flaws (and then only once a monthg)
Not true; updates are released every tuesday.
service packs (notice WinME has had zero service packs)
While Win2k and XP have at least two each. ME was a crumby OS which was meant to have a new OS for people that had to have a new OS every couple of years.
and $50 hotfixes
I've never had to pay for a hotfix, nor has anyone that has gotten the hotfix and had it solve the exact problem for which the patch was intended.
Since Microsoft now depends on returning customers more than new customers, and their customers have little chance of switching vendors, they have every motivation to make older versions as unpalatable as possible.
Most don't buy Windows; Windows comes with their new PC. Its 2006. Why is someone running a six year old operating system anyway? Certainly they can if they want, but to expect support from the manufacter is silly. Hell, cars have warranties which expire sooner than that.
If users expect bundled software, the computer OEMs can supply it.
What if I don't buy my computer from an OEM; what if I buy all the parts and build it myself? Shouldn't I have the CHOICE to buy an OS that DOES have everything bundled already?
Linux is actually just an OS kernel. A Linux distribution bundles a lot of stuff by default, however, you have the ability to change the default setting and not install some bundled application if you don't want it. Linux will keep on working without the bundled app you decided not to install.
Do you enjoy splitting hairs?
Windows bundles IE and WMP, and it is quite impossible to install Windows without installing IE or WMP.
So what? Seriously. Does it stop anyone from installing third party applications? Does their presence interfere with the users ability to do so?
More importantly, why SHOULDN'T an OS come with an html rendering control? Doesn't that provide more tools for the developer targeting the platform? Shouldn't that help drive down other software costs? That'd be good for the consumer, better then five developers having five different renderers which may even interfere with each other.
There's always at least one ms apologist who shows up, makes up their own definition of monopoly, and then claims that MS doesn't fit it.
So I guess you agree with that courts that Linux is irrelevent. You also forget that the judge that found MS a monopoly had his remedies thrown out, because he appeared biased. Its likely and reasonable to conclude that his ruling that MS was a monopoly was also biased. Try to think before blindly throwing labels around.
In the context of US federal anti-trust, which is what matters in the case of Microsoft, monopoly does not mean only one choice, it means only one common choice. For example, see the case of Standard Oil which was one of the defining cases of US anti-trust law - at the time the suit was filed in 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of retail sales and by the time the suit was concluded and the company broken up - Standard's market share was down to 64% of retail sales.
There are differences between a vertical monopoly and horizontal one. With Standard Oil, you pretty much couldn't go anywhere and not buy from Standard Oil. With such a high share of the market, its likely they ARE your only choice. How is this the case with an operating system? You can go to any computer maker you want, and pretty much none of them will require you to buy Windows. Its not needed to make the computer work. Your choice may cause you some inconvience, but there's a difference between being inconvienced and gouged.
I'm saying the courts are wrong. Of course I also think Linux is relevent, but if you agree with the courts, you agree that Linux isn't relevent. The judge that rules MS a monopoly also seemed to have a personal axe to grind, which was why his remedy was thrown out. Its not clear why his findings weren't.
Linux has to be a company to compete with MS? I thought it only needed to be a better OS. Silly me.
And on the apple side of things, Apple does bundle media mastering software, but it isn't tightly interwoven into the OS itself. I'm not sure if the dvd mastering capabilities of Vista are a "click to install/uninstall" afair or if they are tied more tightly to explorer...
Does it matter if its tightly bundled or loosely? Does being tightly bundled somehow affect the ability to install 3rd party software? If it does, its news to me.
You are making the assumption that this is the first or only windows project I've worked on - I'm quite familiar with Win32.
Its the only one you meantioned to back your claim that you developed on the windows platform.
Most of the "cool" things you are seeing in the API were directly lifted from the old Mac Toolbox from circa 1988.
Wow, you actually tried the 'MS just stole from Apple' argument? Ugh. Well if that's the case, I guess it should be really really easy to get Windows apps running on a Mac right?
I'm not saying that it isn't the sender's fault that the email arrived at its destination. That is their fault, and that's why we have spam law.
What I'm saying is that it isn't trespass
Have you read the law defining what trespass is in the state which the judge is presiding?
As for the postal worker, you're butchering my analogy worse than I did.
That's your fault for inappropriate use of an analogy. Don't blame me because you can't limit your discussion to the facts at hand without inventing another story for me to attempt to tear down. Besides, maybe I didn't butcher it at all; maybe your analogy is good, but it just happens to prove the point I wanted, and not your side.
The fact that spammers are also abusing this service in a way that is harmful to you is illegal as covered by anti-spam law, but it is not trespass.
Again, did you read how trespass is defined in that state? I'm betting you haven't. Let me spell it out, the relevent portion is "unwanted use of private property." Spam by definition is unwanted. The computer used to check the email and the account are private property, private property being owned or leased by an individual. Yes leasing is covered; police need a warrant to search your car, even if you're leasing it. Hence, private property. So what part doesn't fit in your mind?
I think you're missing the point of my orignal post: I'm not saying the spammers have done nothing wrong or illegal. I'm just saying they haven't trespassed.
Did you read the defintion of trespass for the state in question? I don't think you have.
Absolutely that's their right. You have the right to set up your email service so that only emails from addresses you've specifically approved will be accepted. People don't usually do that though, simply because it means nobody they haven't previously asked to can email them, which defeats one of email's perceived benefits.
Why should the onus be on the user of the mailbox? Why shouldn't the law (like trespass) default to NOT being allowed, unless given permission. The sender of messges has no responsiblity, they should be able to do whatever they want, which forces others to take time and effort to stop it? Bull.
This is where my analogy breaks down - as does any analogy under close enough scrutiny. I was illustrating the point that the service is invited, not that it's free. I understand that the use of resources makes it more complex, but the receipt of any email, legitimate or not, welcome or not, requested or not, requires the use of your resources. If you want to prevent anyone using it without your permission, you have a virtually closed system (again, losing some of its benefit). Unfortunately email is open to abuse, and the abuse of that system - spam - is already illegal. Again though, that doesn't make it trespass, any more than it makes the email from a friend you haven't seen in years trespass.
Which is why analogies in general stink. Their purpose is to illuminate, and if they don't as you say, what was the point really? Of course whenever the analogy breaks down, the person which started it says 'oh, well my analogy breaks down' never 'opps, maybe it IS holding up, but I cant accept that conclusion.'
At any rate, more email requires more resources. And again, did you READ the law defining trespass for the state in question? If it really includes a part (and since the judge seems to have quoted the law) that says 'unwanted use of private property' clearly spam DOES fit that definition.
I think I've answered that one. They also have a right not to be spammed with illegitimate mail headers - but again, this is already covered by appropriate laws. Why does that mean that this is trespass? You have knowingly invited email from a service which does not discriminate, even though it is possible for you to make the service discriminate. Your openness is being abused, but you did make it open. It sucks, yes, it's illegal, yes, but it isn't trespass.
No you haven't, because I don't think you read the law defining trespass for the state in question. I've said that a lot in this post... I'm hoping the repition will cause you to do just that: READ THE LAW. To your second point, every one knows about spam, but they can't chose to make it non-open. Users can't change the protocols. The fact that its open with no real way for users to close it doesn't mean its ok to abuse it. So what's the equivlent, secure alternative to email? There is none.
Since it seems to be the unpermitted occupation of property that's confusing everyone, I'll use another analogy.
I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post; its another crapyp analogy which is trying to frame the argument in your favor while ignoring the real issues we are discussing. I think others call it a Straw man argument. If you can't argue this point within the confines of this discussion, perhaps you need to take a long hard look at your position. But before you even do that, READ HOW TRESPASS IS DEFINED IN THAT STATE.
First, I did not say it doesn't exist. If you read and thought about it, you would realise that I don't care about features, ACLs, journaling, etc, as they are irrelevant when I can't write to the bloody thing.
Sure you can, if you're running Windows.
Second, consider Microsoft's position: They have over 95% of the market, a ridiculous cash pile, and a very very large monopoly. It would cost them little to nothing to open the relevant parts of the spec so that developers for other platforms and open-source projects could write drivers to interface with their FS. They clearly feel that, since they have over 95% of the OS market, they can afford to not give a rat's ass about interoperability. That, is arrogant.
Cost them nothing? How about locking themselves into that file system? They can't make breaking changes because every other OS which depends on writing to NTFS would break as soon as one system is upgraded. Never mind that they did spend money to develop the stanards for NTFS, which is part of their product. Why should they give away part of their product? Its not arrogant to license your software as you see fit. If I make a program and it becomes popular, what reason do I have to open it up? None. To say that just because something is popular it should be 'freely available to all' is arrogant.
Third, there should be no reason to hate NTFS if it is usable. A filesystem is largely invisible to the user when it doesn't present a barrier, like I describe.
It is usable. Most people don't have a problem at all with it and it is transparent. Its a very, very small minority that even cares.
Fourth, that article you link to: "As some of you are aware, there are some in the community who believe that a.Net 2.0 compatible release was theirs by-right and that I should be moving faster - despite the fact that I am but one man working in his spare time..." I assume this was what you were drawing attention to. This does not apply in this argument, a MS is not "but one man working in his spare time"... it is a multi-billion dollar corporation that could easily allow interoperability with its major FS with little effort. I am also an avid supporter of open-source software and regularly donate to projects that I use. I don't see how this constitutes 'killing'.
So entitlement is ok as long as its aimed at a company instead of an individual? The FS is theirs, and its not arrogant to use your property (software) as you see fit. Telling someone else what they should do with their property IS arrogant. And your response boils down to 'naw uh!' Wow.
Fifth, I do not see the point of continuing this argument. Let's agree to disagree. I'm sure we both have something better to do than hold a long-distance dispute.
In other words, you don't really have any compelling REASONS (nevermind business reasons) to back up your argument, so you're going to walk away. Fine with me.
I think the major point being made is that there is no compelling reason to upgrade - especially in light of the fact that you will most likely need to invest in additional hardware such as a new video card, memory, etc.
I'm not sure this is true. No one need Aero, and its likely disabled by default on computers which cannot handle it (I would hope, anyway). Most people won't be getting Vista anyway for their existing computer, it will come to them on a new computer. As you point out, the average use can't really hook up a printer. They are also likely not to upgrade their OS.
If I were ROXIO or NERO, I'd be pissed, this looks like a de facto and direct competitor product, and if it's bundled as "part of the OS", it would seem close to the line of leveraging again.
Of course no one cares if Linux bundles a Roxio or Nero competitor. Oh wait, its MS, so they can't do it because they are a monopoly, except that no one is forced to buy Windows. A monopoly is the old Ma Bell, where you really didn't have a choice. You have a choice of Linux or Mac or anything else right now. Just because its not a convenient choice does not mean its not a choice. It just means your choice may limit you / create more work for you than chosing MS.
Note that the critisms in the article aren't valid. The only reason I can think of putting Back in the upper left and Next in the lower right is to keep people from accidently clicking one when they mean the other. Personally I'd think this is more of a problem with Maximize and Close, which I'm pretty sure people 'miss' once in a while as well.
If you have a single project that targets Linux and Mac as well as Windows, you're likely NOT taking full advantage of the platform. Coding in C++ on Windows != using the Windows platform to its fullest.
You fail to make a conviencing argument, yet I'm stupid or stuborn. I'm sure you never fail at anything. After all, if something doesn't go your way, its someone else's fault.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it might be smart to actually have some recent experience developing on their platform before forming it.
The statement that shooting is an inappropriate response is based on the premise that this action is not trespass, but more like unsolicited junk-mail - which is not defined as trespass in US or any other law.
If the defintion of trespass in that state is 'unwanted use of personal property' then yes, spammers CAN be guilty of trespass. The spammers actions would not be possible without someone owning a computer. I think you should research the law; the US doesn't define trespass at all, that's up to the states.. and the state in the case may very well have a broad definition of trespass.
I've already addressed your statements in other posts on the differences between snail mail and email. One is that they needed a law SPECIFICALLY to allow postal carriers onto your property without your permission.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, there were a lot of useful little things like that you could do to make your life easier. On the other hand, you've never had to with consoles. They don't tend to need updated software or new hardware or to be properly configured for things to run properly, because they just work because they're all the same (No, I don't need people to point out exceptions, thanks; I have an N64 with the memory expansion, and that was an (arguably) stupid idea. Developers hardly use things like that if they aren't included with the console. See also: PS2 hard drive). Of course, one of the tradeoffs is that you've never been able to get a fancy new video card for them, for example, and until recently, you haven't been able to get new content or mods for games, while at least as far back as things like Doom, there was a pretty good community of people trading WAD files.
Lets also not forget that the best gaming computer also has many other uses. Can you browse the web on a console? Track your savings and mortgage accounts? Write email? IM others? Write a book report, contract, or recipe? Do your taxes on a console? Make your own games? Edit music and video?
See, that's the value in a computer over a console that articles like this always ignore. Computers sometimes require extra work, but for the most part, they ARE plug and play now. In DOS, you had to edit files and pick and choose which drivers to load. Now you turn off the computer, insert the new device, turn it back on and it asks you for the disk. Pretty simple if you ask me.
When the console is 'expired' that is nothign you can do for it. You put it away and it collects dust in the closet. After all, how many consoles do you have room for on one TV anyway? With a computer, you may have to buy a new video card and you're good for a few more years. Buy a few more components (MB, RAM, CPU) in those couple of years and your good for a long while. Far cheaper than buying everything again.
Now that's just not even true. The average time between console generations since the original NES came out has been about five years, which is plenty of time to get a lot of use out of each set of hardware, just like you don't need to upgrade your PC constantly, either.
Then once the new console is realease, the old is worthless and collects dust. Game development for the older platform is promptly stopped. Also the prices of consoles have been steadly rising to revile that of mid end computers. When your PC is obsolete, many of the parts can be moved to the new system. If you don't want to do that, you still have something that can do email and internet. It doesn't become totally worthless.
There's no need to talk-down - being patronizing does not necessarily mean you have a greater understanding of the issue.
/., IANAL except in my own armchair), it's that I also understand the legal requirements to fulfill that concept to a legal standard.
Hopefully talking down will help you realize what a silly position you're taking.
What doesn't fit is your subjective view of "unwanted".
Its subjective because its up to the property owner to determine what is unwanted.
Any criminal conviction (except for the very few laws involving "strict liability") involves two components - the actus reus and the mens rea, or, the guilty act and the guilty mind.
And it's the issue of guilty mind with which I have contention. Trespass is not a strict-liability law, so it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that (as well as performing the act) the perpetrator was aware that their use of the plaintiff's property was "unwanted" by the plaintiff.
No, the trespass law in question doesn't seem to stipulate that. Indeed, I would say that the law assumes that any use without permission must be assumed to be unwanted use. Personally I would love to see tougher trespass laws; for example, I have a fence around my entire property. From that, it should be clear I don't want people on it.. yet I still have to post a sign (this is in another state from the one in the article).
If the spammer was really worried about trespass, he would have taken effort to find out if sending spam to this person was an 'unwanted use of private property.' Any reasonable court (and yes, most are) would say a message asking that would not fall under trespass, since they are making a reasonable attempt to find out if the person wishes to receive spam. Since the spammer didn't do this, and spammed away, they are guilty of uwanted use of private property, or in this case, trespass, since that is a definition of trespass in the state.
[ignoring rest of post, as I've covered that]
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't understand the concept of trespass(although, like just about everyone on
As do I. The law seems pretty clearly written in this case. The spamming was 'unwanted use of private property' and trespass is clearly defined to have that meaning. Therefore the spamming was trespass.
I'm really not trying to say that it shouldn't be viewed as gravely as trespass, but legally speaking, it just isn't all there. That's why I think it's a strange and foolish thing for the court to say. If the state really views this crime as trespass, why not convict it as such?
Sure it is. The law is clear in this case. Obviously the state really views the crime as trespass, which is why the spammer was found guilty of trespass!
Uh, well, WinXP was released in 2001, so its only about a year and a half newer than Win2K. I really don't see a huge difference between running a 6.5 year old OS and running a 5 year old OS.
I dunno perhaps because there are a lot of changes in XP; namely that SP2 adds a bunch of stuff and fixes a huge amount of features. At the very least because they actually still sell XP.
So? Cars aren't very much like computer operating systems.
Yes. For some reason computer users expect their computer to be supported until the user dies of old age. They also expect free fixes to boot. Just because they expect it though does not mean its reasonable.
You sir, are the black hole of jokes.
Either you're very, very lucky, or you're very new to it. It's probably 3 years or so since I gave up on PC gaming.
I've been gaming on the computer since before Wolf3D. As I said, its not just me either. None of my friends have been having all the problems you describe.
I'm far more technically adept than most -- and have been gaming since the 8 bit era (when games would "just work") and through the DOS era when you had to build boot floppies of various kinds to allow games to fit in their 640KB -- but I've never owned a PC where gaming was reliable.
Maybe you're not as technically adept as you think. If you were, you'd have a boot menu that properly setup the dos game by not loading drivers not needed. My gaming experience on the PC has been very reliable, such that I gave up consoles years ago (after the SNES).
Come on, either you're fabulously rich and constantly ahead of the hardware curve, or you've bought games that are too chuggy to enjoy on your hardware.
Its a myth that you need to upgrade your computer every year (not that current consoles last at most 3 years, before the next gen comes out). I stay one step behind the latest cutting edge machine, and can play all modern games just fine. I spent $150 in 2004 to upgrade my video card in my three year old computer to play doom 3. No, it wasn't set at the highest detail (and when doom was released, I don't think any computer could set the detail that high at the time0, but it was pretty high up.
As a matter of policy, Microsoft generally doesn't fix bugs in already released software, with the exceptions of publicly known security flaws (and then only once a monthg)
Not true; updates are released every tuesday.
service packs (notice WinME has had zero service packs)
While Win2k and XP have at least two each. ME was a crumby OS which was meant to have a new OS for people that had to have a new OS every couple of years.
and $50 hotfixes
I've never had to pay for a hotfix, nor has anyone that has gotten the hotfix and had it solve the exact problem for which the patch was intended.
Since Microsoft now depends on returning customers more than new customers, and their customers have little chance of switching vendors, they have every motivation to make older versions as unpalatable as possible.
Most don't buy Windows; Windows comes with their new PC. Its 2006. Why is someone running a six year old operating system anyway? Certainly they can if they want, but to expect support from the manufacter is silly. Hell, cars have warranties which expire sooner than that.
Honestly, I don't know anyone that's had problems playing games. I haven't had a game that wouldn't 'just work' on a PC either.
If users expect bundled software, the computer OEMs can supply it.
What if I don't buy my computer from an OEM; what if I buy all the parts and build it myself? Shouldn't I have the CHOICE to buy an OS that DOES have everything bundled already?
Linux is actually just an OS kernel. A Linux distribution bundles a lot of stuff by default, however, you have the ability to change the default setting and not install some bundled application if you don't want it. Linux will keep on working without the bundled app you decided not to install.
Do you enjoy splitting hairs?
Windows bundles IE and WMP, and it is quite impossible to install Windows without installing IE or WMP.
So what? Seriously. Does it stop anyone from installing third party applications? Does their presence interfere with the users ability to do so?
More importantly, why SHOULDN'T an OS come with an html rendering control? Doesn't that provide more tools for the developer targeting the platform? Shouldn't that help drive down other software costs? That'd be good for the consumer, better then five developers having five different renderers which may even interfere with each other.
There's always at least one ms apologist who shows up, makes up their own definition of monopoly, and then claims that MS doesn't fit it.
So I guess you agree with that courts that Linux is irrelevent. You also forget that the judge that found MS a monopoly had his remedies thrown out, because he appeared biased. Its likely and reasonable to conclude that his ruling that MS was a monopoly was also biased. Try to think before blindly throwing labels around.
In the context of US federal anti-trust, which is what matters in the case of Microsoft, monopoly does not mean only one choice, it means only one common choice. For example, see the case of Standard Oil which was one of the defining cases of US anti-trust law - at the time the suit was filed in 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of retail sales and by the time the suit was concluded and the company broken up - Standard's market share was down to 64% of retail sales.
There are differences between a vertical monopoly and horizontal one. With Standard Oil, you pretty much couldn't go anywhere and not buy from Standard Oil. With such a high share of the market, its likely they ARE your only choice. How is this the case with an operating system? You can go to any computer maker you want, and pretty much none of them will require you to buy Windows. Its not needed to make the computer work. Your choice may cause you some inconvience, but there's a difference between being inconvienced and gouged.
I'm saying the courts are wrong. Of course I also think Linux is relevent, but if you agree with the courts, you agree that Linux isn't relevent. The judge that rules MS a monopoly also seemed to have a personal axe to grind, which was why his remedy was thrown out. Its not clear why his findings weren't.
Last time I checked "Linux" wasn't a company.
Linux has to be a company to compete with MS? I thought it only needed to be a better OS. Silly me.
And on the apple side of things, Apple does bundle media mastering software, but it isn't tightly interwoven into the OS itself. I'm not sure if the dvd mastering capabilities of Vista are a "click to install/uninstall" afair or if they are tied more tightly to explorer...
Does it matter if its tightly bundled or loosely? Does being tightly bundled somehow affect the ability to install 3rd party software? If it does, its news to me.
You are making the assumption that this is the first or only windows project I've worked on - I'm quite familiar with Win32.
Its the only one you meantioned to back your claim that you developed on the windows platform.
Most of the "cool" things you are seeing in the API were directly lifted from the old Mac Toolbox from circa 1988.
Wow, you actually tried the 'MS just stole from Apple' argument? Ugh. Well if that's the case, I guess it should be really really easy to get Windows apps running on a Mac right?
I'm not saying that it isn't the sender's fault that the email arrived at its destination. That is their fault, and that's why we have spam law.
What I'm saying is that it isn't trespass
Have you read the law defining what trespass is in the state which the judge is presiding?
As for the postal worker, you're butchering my analogy worse than I did.
That's your fault for inappropriate use of an analogy. Don't blame me because you can't limit your discussion to the facts at hand without inventing another story for me to attempt to tear down. Besides, maybe I didn't butcher it at all; maybe your analogy is good, but it just happens to prove the point I wanted, and not your side.
The fact that spammers are also abusing this service in a way that is harmful to you is illegal as covered by anti-spam law, but it is not trespass.
Again, did you read how trespass is defined in that state? I'm betting you haven't. Let me spell it out, the relevent portion is "unwanted use of private property." Spam by definition is unwanted. The computer used to check the email and the account are private property, private property being owned or leased by an individual. Yes leasing is covered; police need a warrant to search your car, even if you're leasing it. Hence, private property. So what part doesn't fit in your mind?
I think you're missing the point of my orignal post: I'm not saying the spammers have done nothing wrong or illegal. I'm just saying they haven't trespassed.
Did you read the defintion of trespass for the state in question? I don't think you have.
Absolutely that's their right. You have the right to set up your email service so that only emails from addresses you've specifically approved will be accepted. People don't usually do that though, simply because it means nobody they haven't previously asked to can email them, which defeats one of email's perceived benefits.
Why should the onus be on the user of the mailbox? Why shouldn't the law (like trespass) default to NOT being allowed, unless given permission. The sender of messges has no responsiblity, they should be able to do whatever they want, which forces others to take time and effort to stop it? Bull.
This is where my analogy breaks down - as does any analogy under close enough scrutiny. I was illustrating the point that the service is invited, not that it's free. I understand that the use of resources makes it more complex, but the receipt of any email, legitimate or not, welcome or not, requested or not, requires the use of your resources. If you want to prevent anyone using it without your permission, you have a virtually closed system (again, losing some of its benefit). Unfortunately email is open to abuse, and the abuse of that system - spam - is already illegal. Again though, that doesn't make it trespass, any more than it makes the email from a friend you haven't seen in years trespass.
Which is why analogies in general stink. Their purpose is to illuminate, and if they don't as you say, what was the point really? Of course whenever the analogy breaks down, the person which started it says 'oh, well my analogy breaks down' never 'opps, maybe it IS holding up, but I cant accept that conclusion.'
At any rate, more email requires more resources. And again, did you READ the law defining trespass for the state in question? If it really includes a part (and since the judge seems to have quoted the law) that says 'unwanted use of private property' clearly spam DOES fit that definition.
I think I've answered that one. They also have a right not to be spammed with illegitimate mail headers - but again, this is already covered by appropriate laws. Why does that mean that this is trespass? You have knowingly invited email from a service which does not discriminate, even though it is possible for you to make the service discriminate. Your openness is being abused, but you did make it open. It sucks, yes, it's illegal, yes, but it isn't trespass.
No you haven't, because I don't think you read the law defining trespass for the state in question. I've said that a lot in this post... I'm hoping the repition will cause you to do just that: READ THE LAW. To your second point, every one knows about spam, but they can't chose to make it non-open. Users can't change the protocols. The fact that its open with no real way for users to close it doesn't mean its ok to abuse it. So what's the equivlent, secure alternative to email? There is none.
Since it seems to be the unpermitted occupation of property that's confusing everyone, I'll use another analogy.
I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post; its another crapyp analogy which is trying to frame the argument in your favor while ignoring the real issues we are discussing. I think others call it a Straw man argument. If you can't argue this point within the confines of this discussion, perhaps you need to take a long hard look at your position. But before you even do that, READ HOW TRESPASS IS DEFINED IN THAT STATE.
First, I did not say it doesn't exist. If you read and thought about it, you would realise that I don't care about features, ACLs, journaling, etc, as they are irrelevant when I can't write to the bloody thing.
.Net 2.0 compatible release was theirs by-right and that I should be moving faster - despite the fact that I am but one man working in his spare time..."
Sure you can, if you're running Windows.
Second, consider Microsoft's position: They have over 95% of the market, a ridiculous cash pile, and a very very large monopoly. It would cost them little to nothing to open the relevant parts of the spec so that developers for other platforms and open-source projects could write drivers to interface with their FS. They clearly feel that, since they have over 95% of the OS market, they can afford to not give a rat's ass about interoperability. That, is arrogant.
Cost them nothing? How about locking themselves into that file system? They can't make breaking changes because every other OS which depends on writing to NTFS would break as soon as one system is upgraded. Never mind that they did spend money to develop the stanards for NTFS, which is part of their product. Why should they give away part of their product? Its not arrogant to license your software as you see fit. If I make a program and it becomes popular, what reason do I have to open it up? None. To say that just because something is popular it should be 'freely available to all' is arrogant.
Third, there should be no reason to hate NTFS if it is usable. A filesystem is largely invisible to the user when it doesn't present a barrier, like I describe.
It is usable. Most people don't have a problem at all with it and it is transparent. Its a very, very small minority that even cares.
Fourth, that article you link to: "As some of you are aware, there are some in the community who believe that a
I assume this was what you were drawing attention to. This does not apply in this argument, a MS is not "but one man working in his spare time"... it is a multi-billion dollar corporation that could easily allow interoperability with its major FS with little effort. I am also an avid supporter of open-source software and regularly donate to projects that I use. I don't see how this constitutes 'killing'.
So entitlement is ok as long as its aimed at a company instead of an individual? The FS is theirs, and its not arrogant to use your property (software) as you see fit. Telling someone else what they should do with their property IS arrogant. And your response boils down to 'naw uh!' Wow.
Fifth, I do not see the point of continuing this argument. Let's agree to disagree. I'm sure we both have something better to do than hold a long-distance dispute.
In other words, you don't really have any compelling REASONS (nevermind business reasons) to back up your argument, so you're going to walk away. Fine with me.
I'm pretty sure you can buy a Vista license and then exercise downgrade rights.
MS sells the OS Windows. There is no need to include "3rd party" functionality.
Linux is just an OS too. Yet its ok for them?
The catch is they may not be selling anything at all; they may be wanting my info so that they can resell it themselves. Could be a loop hole..
I think the major point being made is that there is no compelling reason to upgrade - especially in light of the fact that you will most likely need to invest in additional hardware such as a new video card, memory, etc.
I'm not sure this is true. No one need Aero, and its likely disabled by default on computers which cannot handle it (I would hope, anyway). Most people won't be getting Vista anyway for their existing computer, it will come to them on a new computer. As you point out, the average use can't really hook up a printer. They are also likely not to upgrade their OS.
If I were ROXIO or NERO, I'd be pissed, this looks like a de facto and direct competitor product, and if it's bundled as "part of the OS", it would seem close to the line of leveraging again.
Of course no one cares if Linux bundles a Roxio or Nero competitor. Oh wait, its MS, so they can't do it because they are a monopoly, except that no one is forced to buy Windows. A monopoly is the old Ma Bell, where you really didn't have a choice. You have a choice of Linux or Mac or anything else right now. Just because its not a convenient choice does not mean its not a choice. It just means your choice may limit you / create more work for you than chosing MS.
Note that the critisms in the article aren't valid. The only reason I can think of putting Back in the upper left and Next in the lower right is to keep people from accidently clicking one when they mean the other. Personally I'd think this is more of a problem with Maximize and Close, which I'm pretty sure people 'miss' once in a while as well.
If you have a single project that targets Linux and Mac as well as Windows, you're likely NOT taking full advantage of the platform. Coding in C++ on Windows != using the Windows platform to its fullest.
You fail to make a conviencing argument, yet I'm stupid or stuborn. I'm sure you never fail at anything. After all, if something doesn't go your way, its someone else's fault.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it might be smart to actually have some recent experience developing on their platform before forming it.
Did you even read what I said?
Yup.
The statement that shooting is an inappropriate response is based on the premise that this action is not trespass, but more like unsolicited junk-mail - which is not defined as trespass in US or any other law.
If the defintion of trespass in that state is 'unwanted use of personal property' then yes, spammers CAN be guilty of trespass. The spammers actions would not be possible without someone owning a computer. I think you should research the law; the US doesn't define trespass at all, that's up to the states.. and the state in the case may very well have a broad definition of trespass.
I've already addressed your statements in other posts on the differences between snail mail and email. One is that they needed a law SPECIFICALLY to allow postal carriers onto your property without your permission.