>> What it amounts to is a law saying that it is illegal to pick locks. Well then what do you do if you are locked out of your house or car?
> A better analogy would be to make it illegal to make a hairpin, as it could be used to pick a lock
Stop, you're both right. The DMCA bans both circumventing copyright protections (picking the lock) and tools for performing this circumvention (the hairpin).
Ironically, despite a few hiccups along the way, it's becoming clear that Mac OS, not Windows, epitomizes Microsoft's new mantra of "secure by design, default, and deployment."
That is true, right now, but it is not a fair comparison.
Look, I'm no MS fan, but they have not released an operating system since they started their "trustworthy" initiative. The Windows operating systems being discussed are old (WinXP came out in 2001), and obviously full of holes--so full of holes that MS had to start this whole focus on security.
So comparing anything to an admittedly weak and insecure operating system is just plain silly. Everyone knows Windows is insecure. Saying MacOSX is more secure than Windows means nothing, and in fact makes OSX security look comparable to that of Windows when in fact it is far better (regardless of what that PCMagazine moron wants to believe).
So, how about we give MS a chance and at least wait for them to release an OS under their "secure by design, default, and deployment" banner before we start ripping it. We may be pleasantly surprised (although I doubt it).
While I agree with most of your points, I think you have the first two backwards.
If Apple lets the price float, retailers' profits on Apple hardware suddenly drop close to zero, and few retailers will continue to carry Apple stuff.
I think you have that backwards. It's not Apple who would lower the iPod's price, its retailers. Retailers buy the iPod wholesale, mark it up, and sell it for a profit.
So, if a retailer wants to lower the price of an iPod and lose a little profit, what is stopping them? Apple.
When authorized Apple retailers lower the price point beyond Apple's specified range, they risk losing the privilege of being "authorized Apple retailers." So, the real reason is not that retailers will stop carrying Apple products, it's that Apple will stop allowing the retailer to carry their products. There is a difference.
So, why does Apple force retailers to keep iPod prices high? I don't know. Probably for some of the reasons you listed in points 3-5.
Slashdot Mirror
'A vulnerability that involves the incorrect parsing of URLs that contain special characters' in Internet Explorer
Yeah, the special characters www.google.com now correctly parse to search.msn.com
I would be absolutely embarrassed to say "I work for SCO"
"I work for SCO"
I just shouted that out loud while sitting at my desk. You were right--I am embarassed.
This whole Linux/MS cycle was inevitable. I'm no expert, but its how these situations seem to evolve: ignore, attack, embrace.
First Microsoft ignored Linux a few years ago, hoping it would just go away.
Now, MS is attacking Linux. When this fails, the only thing left is for MS to accept Linux.
Can you imagine? Now introducing (gasp) MS Linux 2008...
Oh, the horror. I think Slashdot would self-destruct.
>> What it amounts to is a law saying that it is illegal to pick locks. Well then what do you do if you are locked out of your house or car?
> A better analogy would be to make it illegal to make a hairpin, as it could be used to pick a lock
Stop, you're both right. The DMCA bans both circumventing copyright protections (picking the lock) and tools for performing this circumvention (the hairpin).
Ironically, despite a few hiccups along the way, it's becoming clear that Mac OS, not Windows, epitomizes Microsoft's new mantra of "secure by design, default, and deployment."
That is true, right now, but it is not a fair comparison.
Look, I'm no MS fan, but they have not released an operating system since they started their "trustworthy" initiative. The Windows operating systems being discussed are old (WinXP came out in 2001), and obviously full of holes--so full of holes that MS had to start this whole focus on security.
So comparing anything to an admittedly weak and insecure operating system is just plain silly. Everyone knows Windows is insecure. Saying MacOSX is more secure than Windows means nothing, and in fact makes OSX security look comparable to that of Windows when in fact it is far better (regardless of what that PCMagazine moron wants to believe).
So, how about we give MS a chance and at least wait for them to release an OS under their "secure by design, default, and deployment" banner before we start ripping it. We may be pleasantly surprised (although I doubt it).
While I agree with most of your points, I think you have the first two backwards.
If Apple lets the price float, retailers' profits on Apple hardware suddenly drop close to zero, and few retailers will continue to carry Apple stuff.
I think you have that backwards. It's not Apple who would lower the iPod's price, its retailers. Retailers buy the iPod wholesale, mark it up, and sell it for a profit.
So, if a retailer wants to lower the price of an iPod and lose a little profit, what is stopping them? Apple.
When authorized Apple retailers lower the price point beyond Apple's specified range, they risk losing the privilege of being "authorized Apple retailers." So, the real reason is not that retailers will stop carrying Apple products, it's that Apple will stop allowing the retailer to carry their products. There is a difference.
So, why does Apple force retailers to keep iPod prices high? I don't know. Probably for some of the reasons you listed in points 3-5.
As a historian, nothing irritates me more than the neo-conservative hogwash that Regan or Bush Sr won the Cold War
Nicely written.
Unfortunately, a quick search at Amazon shows that quite a few other historians disagree with you . And they know how to correctly spell Reagan.
Maybe history is not as black and white as you claim, and this "neo-conservative hogwash" is just an opinion that's as equally valid as yours.