Re:I have plenty of reasons to dislike Microsoft..
on
The BBC's Honeypot PC
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Strictly, they said the attack was aimed at IIS, not that the attack was successful.
Strictly, they said one (1) attack was for IIS.
In fact, it's not clear from the article that ANY of the attacks were successful. If that's true, it doesn't really matter how many attacks there were, and it doesn't make Windows any less safe than Linux or VMS, for that matter. Only the successful attacks matter. (You've got to shut down the Messenger, to be sure, but I'm pretty sure that comes turned off now, and it was a stupid feature in the first place.)
This wasn't to see whether it was successful or not but to identify the types of attacks and where they are coming from. They state in TFA that next week they let it go full bore to show what happens. Call it a teaser or next weeks/. feature again. Besides, you are totally missing the point. I'll outline it here for you...
Aunt Bessy goes to OfficeMax and picks out that fancy new HP gadget that everyone is talking about. Of course, she gets the one on clearance sale to save money since it looks just like the one on the shelf. She takes it home, follows the pretty picture diagram that was in the box showing her how to plug things in and hooks it right up to her new cable modem. Since this machine was older, it isn't updated to SP2 yet and to make it worse, her "restore disks" that she has to make are that very same pre-SP2 version. Aunt Bessy doesn't know a thing about firewalls, routers, antivirus, etc. that we all know about. So now here she is hooked up in the raw to the Internet getting attacked every 15 minutes running HP's XP Home which defaults to no password, admin user, yadda, yadda, yadda. Ten seconds into her first experience she gets infected and things go downhill from there. Even if she was to try to run Windows Update, she is still going to get infected before she accomplishes the update.
This problem rests squarely in the lap of Microsoft. They sacrificed security for the all important "ease of use" marketing. Adding in WGA for updates only makes the problem that much worse since it makes people (especially the false positives) not want to update. In short, Microsoft is a menace to networking as if we didn't already know that.
B.
Re:Is it really an infection if...
on
IE7 Toolbar Mayhem
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think you both are missing the true point to this article. The last page says it all when he rolled back and it got rid of all but one (yahoo) toolbar! Try that with IE6. The Yahoo toolbar staying does trouble me though. I can see those others reverse engineering the Yahoo toolbar just to see how it was able to survive the rollback. Still, it is much better than IE6.
One of the many reasons SCOG changed names was to cause confusion in the market as well as the court room and it worked based on what you posted (with the exception of your last sentence). The SCO Group != Santa Cruz Operation (SCO). The name changed after they filed as can be seen from http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/complaint3.06.03. html when they filed as Caldera. The whole idea was to cause as much confusion as possible making their claims seem more plausible. Just keep in mind, the SCO Group exists only for litigation from start to finish.
Not the original poster but what the hell, I'll give it a shot...
Now back to the main story. Since you all are running Linux and piss on MS on a regular basis. Why should what MS does even bother you?
From a copyright / DRM standpoint, whatever a large politically connected entity like Microsoft does to protect their "Intellectual Property" should worry those who value freedom. Don't think for a moment that Microsoft doesn't push Congress for more extreme measures than even the DMCA gives them. Why else do you think Microsoft is pushing for global software patents so hard?
Money buys large corporations many a legislator and gives them a legal advantage that normal people can never match. They can tie up the legal system for years until they get laws that favor their position pushed through.
In short, it pays to raise a stink when any large corporation unfairly games the system as much as Microsoft does.
"Rather than wasting all the time and effort on doing this - I think the efforts could be better spent simply doing all the patches for the "unsupported" OS's, and *not* the current ones."
I agree. At least those with unsupported OS's are given one more option than they started out with.
"It would still accomplish the same result that most of these security experts seem to want; making MS look bad for their slow response times. (Imagine the embarassment if it turns out you're better and more quickly patched against vulnerabilities by running one of Microsoft's "now unsupported" OS's like Windows '98 or ME than by using their current products!) Plus, it provides needed patches for a marketplace that can't get them anymore any other way."
The moment these 3rd party patches start to outdo Windows Update, expect the lawsuits to fly. Microsoft uses Windows Update for more than updates. WGA is one example of using the update mechanism for ulterior motives. Consider also, the whole reason for EOL is to force users to upgrade rather than continue to use their existing OS. Cut off that reason and Microsoft will surely see you as a threat to their business model.
I know some people seem to suffer from this strange compulsion to always buy/install the latest "stuff", and I know some people feel inadequate or insecure if they don't, but apart from that why would you bother?
I know several reasons. Microsoft won't support W2K forever. I expect W2K support to die when Vista has been out for at least a year if not sooner. By support I mean patches for both functionality and security. I have already run into programs that won't install unless it sees Windows XP SP2. It will only get worse when Vista comes out. Also, try buying W2K at your local computer store. I can just about assure you that it isn't on the shelves. The same will happen to XP when Vista hits the market. And lastly, the most common answer from tech support (Microsoft or otherwise) is "an upgrade to $LATESTVERSION will fix your problem".
I am glad that W2K works for you now but sooner or later you will be forced to upgrade. Whether it is from new hardware that won't work in W2K or lack of software that will run on it, you will still be on that upgrade treadmill.
For whatever reason, they find Windows(tm) computers most useful.
It isn't so much that users find Windows(tm) more useful but that they are resistant to change. Here are my top reasons why most users put up with Windows(tm).
It comes pre-installed on their machine so why change?
It is what their employer forces them to use at work so why change?
The programs people have become used to are not available for the new OS so why change?
My hardware manufacturer only supports Microsoft so why change?
Local support of the alternative OS is almost nonexistant so why change? (ie ever call your ISP for setup instructions for Linux?)
The learning curve of the new OS is too steep so why change?
Files sent from other users won't work in the new OS so why change?
All of these are given at some point to justify why people won't change. Until these issues can be addressed, expect alternative OSes to always be relegated to the also run category.
In the US, the burden of proof is always with the plaintiff. They have NOT shown proof of violation with the list or more to the point I can show that their list is often wrong. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show the violation not the defendant to show that it isn't. I have shown that the list is faulty. If she had a good attorney (which she does since they are asking for them to be thrown out without the files) the attorney would show the same thing.
A "sample" isn't good enough when you are talking per-violation damages. The only thing the "sample " establishes is that those 11 files are 11 violations (if they can show they hold the copyright that is). They are asking for damages for 38 files so they should be able to show FOR EVERY INSTANCE that they are violations. The second story I posted especially shows why. You are asking a jury to grant you damages for items you can't show are violations.
Feel free to argue that you must have all the evidence you need to win a trial before filing a lawsuit, and to argue that you must have actual copies or physical specimens of each an every infringing work or device. When a corporation is a defendant, it will be more than happy to use those ludicrous arguments to its advantage to make it even more difficult for individuals to prove and obtain relief for copyright infringement, patent infringement, theft of trade secrets, and the like. It won't actually happen, and the defendants are going to lose these types of arguments, but the intellectual breadth of the typical Slashdot legal analysis continues to astound me.
It goes to damages. The damages are determined on a per-violation basis. The RIAA is arguing that they don't need the actual files to be obtainable to prove damages. I have evidence that says that they do:
In one case, Warner Bros. demanded a particular subscriber be disconnected for illegally sharing the movie "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." But the computer file identified by Warner Bros. in its letter indicated that it wasn't the "Harry Potter" movie but a child's written book report.
and...
Another letter, to Internet provider UUNet, wanted a subscriber cut off because they were sharing songs by former Beatle George Harrison. But some files were not songs at all. One was an interview with Harrison, and another was a 1947 photograph of a "Mrs. Harrison."
So yes, they need the actual files given this track record especially when they are seeking $150,000+ per file.
"American Psychological Association developed the definition of TV addiction as "heavy television watching that is subjectively experienced as being to some extent involuntary, displacing more productive activities, and difficult to stop or curtail.""
And just who is the one to determine "more productive activities"? The APA? You? The problem the APA has is every slight thing in human behavior to them is a disorder. This is for purpose other than their interest in humanity. When things get called a "disorder" expect that someone wants health insurance to pay for the treatment. Plain and simple.
Most, if not all, states that allow marriage below the age of majority do so with the caveat of "parental consent". It goes back to the shotgun weedings premarital sex would cause in God fearing communities. Far better to allow you to marry them young than have an "out of wedlock" incident.
"It's not meant to be a believable lie. It is a clever political ploy developed by Karl Rove."
Your political agenda aside, it is a tactic that predates Karl Rove by several centuries. It dates back to the career politician. In the 1800s it was slavery and Indian affairs. In the early 1900s it was liqueur. In the mid 1900s it was the Nazis and communism. In the late 1900s it was drugs. Now it is terrorism and "thinkofthechildren". Politicians need something to demonize to show they are "fighting the good fight". So contrary to your rant about the current holders of power, this is nothing new.
I believe that another poster has the right of it. This issue won't go away until you institute term limits for Congress just like they did for the presidency. The chances of seeing this though are slim and none. Asking Congress to institute term limits on themselves just isn't going to happen....Sadly....
So, you're gonna buy a ticket to Australia now that I've said that?
Sure! I could use a break from good ol' WV even if it does cost me $100,000,000 Australian Quatloos...
The problem with your logic is that they *didn't* ignore a court summons - they were never served with a summons. You can't ignore a summons that was never served.
Yes, that is the flaw in my logic IF they weren't served. However, they posted not only the complaint but an answer to it on their website BEFORE the default judgment was entered. To say they knew nothing about it is IMO dishonest to say the least even if technically correct.
That is still neither here nor there as they have a default judgment against them that can be devastating to any spamhaus members that are in the US as well as any assets they may have here. Also, this spammer can use this conviction to further their cause. Do they really want to risk that for one spammer? This issue needs to be addressed not ignored.
I agree it is tough for those caught in the middle of a ISP who supports spammers and spamhaus fight. That is the way is has to be though because nothing else has worked. ISPs aren't just put on the list willy-nilly-neigh. They are given every opertunity and then some to fix their problem. Now it is up to you to put pressure on the ISP where it hurts. If your ISP is more interested in supporting spammers than legit customers, that is something for you to consider.
As for this case, there are several issue that I think should have been done differently. You NEVER ignore a court summons or you run the risk of default judgements like this. The case they had in Florida against the eAmericaMarketing.com (or something like that) shows how to properly handle things like this. Answer the complaint challenging every word in it including jurisdiction, how spamhaus blacklist works, the amount of spam and / or spam support offered by plaintiff, etc. I suspect it would never make it to the discovery phase just like in Florida. It also would give spamhaus the right to file claims of harrassment, extortion, and whatever other UK laws that an action like this would provoke including the original offense of spamming UK residents. And best of all, they could use the same tactic this schmuck is using by filing it in the UK.
I feel ignoring both the charges then the order will really hurt the cause spamhaus is supposed to be pushing.
Following the district court, we treat the licenses as ordinary contracts accompanying the sale of products, and therefore as governed by the common law of contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code. Whether there are legal differences between "contracts" and "licenses" (which may matter under the copyright doctrine of first sale) is a subject for another day.
That is from the ruling under part II. They treated this case as if it were a contract because the district court did.
That's what they mean when the pundents screech "paper trail!". The "paper trail" isn't for the voter to take home but to verify before depositing it in a ballot box. The problem is the voting machines that are produced by and large don't print anything. The votes are recorded inside and transfered to a larger repository for counting. If the count is off, there is no way to recount other than the faulty data in the machine already.
When you consider the ease of simply printing a receipt like slip of paper one has to wonder why they refuse to make them all do it. There is more accountability when you go to the supermarket than when you go vote.
Right, but try to find computers with some sort of Linux preinstalled. While not impossible, it's exceedingly hard and the reason is that Microsoft is leveraging their monopoly. The lever is the network effect which causes a lot of customers to require Windows, so not selling Windows would equate to losing a large portion of a PC seller's customers. Microsoft can use that to pressure the seller to certain actions, for example, contractually require them not to advertise any Linux-based computer or even to cease selling them altogether, which means in a lot of cases you are often forced to buy Microsoft software, because it's bundled with the hardware you want.
Also note that OpenOffice isn't a replacement for MS Office, not because of the aforementioned network effect: If you are required to use complex MS Office documents, the only option available is MS Office.
Microsoft reached a settlement with the various states that precludes them from this particular practice. If it can be proved that they are still doing it then not only is it a violation of antitrust but of that settlement. That will have to be seen in court.
But I don't think that is the real issue at all. The problem comes from the interoperability issues that Microsoft faces with their standards. As you noted in your post, it is almost a requirement to use Microsoft products to be able to interact with others that are using it. Add to that the hardware that is specifically designed to only work in Windows and it forces users into purchasing Windows to be able to use that hardware. The effect is the same in that it is economic suicide for OEMs to not pre-install Windows. Also, think of the support nightmares involved in distributing the many alternatives. There are hundreds of Linux distributors alone all with subtle differences in how they operate. And lastly, the OEM is more likely to choose a platform that furthers their interests of selling more hardware. Let's face it, Microsoft based software increases the OEM's sales simply by requiring more resources to run.
Microsoft needs to stop treating every pirate like criminals and then maybe more of them will feel inclined to start paying for the software.
I agree that the line you are referring to was a poor choice of words. But the overall premise of the post is still valid. They are treating their customers as if they were pirates with product activation. When the activation fails, it is the customer that has to initiate (sometimes unsuccessfully) the remedy either legit or not. The legit route the GP is referring to is often more expensive in terms of time, effort, and frustration than simply using an illegitimate way. So yes, they are treating their customers as if they are pirates.
Slashdot is really hammering the copyright violation lawsuits. What's the point here? That if you break copyrights you're going to get sued? Fine. Lets all mature to a point where we can deal with the consequences to our actions.
Although I agree with you there is a flipside to this argument. The lobbies for the big copyright holders such as Microsoft have skewed the copyright laws to the point of ridiculous. They have bought the politicians to ensure never ending profit from copyrighted works. Ensuring a perpetual profit was never the intention of copyright but that is what it has become. Where in all this is the public domain's intrests protected? After all, it is the public domain that copyright exists in the first place.
I think, despite how it looks out front, that MS is making a good initiative. If you obey the law and are legit, you don't have to worry right? They aren't the RIAA... They seem to actually know who the hell they're suing.
The RIAA started by suing big distributors such as Napster before they sued end users. This is just the first step down the new litigation business model for MS. The lawsuits they filed are a direct result of the WGA initiative. It won't be too long before they go after individual people that fail the WGA test after they milk the businesses they are catching for all they can.
As for not having to worry about being legit, I recommend you ask all those that were wrongly identified by WGA if they should be worried.
There is a point where risk outweighs benefit. I don't own a cell phone and never will since they don't work in the hollows of WV. They are expensive annoyances that I live without.
You will find it hard to convince people here that the taxes already collected for road work isn't enough. Besides, unless it is nationally mandated, it is a futile effort for a single state to have it. Nothing prevents a citizen in one state from purchasing a car from another that doesn't have the GPS. They would also have to outlaw tampering with the things. No, this type of scheme is too risky to both the state (loss of revenue due malfunction / tampering) as well as the owner (big brother is watching you).
"Absolutely true- and a point I'm trying to get across to my bosses at Oregon Department of Transportation in their bid to use GPS tech to charge road-mile taxes."
They are trying to gather steam for this notion in my state as well. Schemes like this are just plain silly besides being a HUGE intrusion on privacy. What prevents a stalker from cracking the transmitter this device most assuredly will have and using it to track his victim to their death? The lawyers will have a field day with this one.
"The people who were stealing (or at least who we caught stealing) were almost always the teenage daughters of the rich guys that came to the town for vacations... what gives? Any psychologists reading?"
No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night...;-)
I would suspect (this is just a guess though) that it is thrill / attention seeking behavior. Let's face it, when daddy arrives to pick up the little princess, she finally has his attention.
When I was in college I worked for Burger King down the road from the local high school. Every year they had a game then afterwards would come into the store and proceed to tear the place apart in about half an hour. Confront the parents and the first thing out of their mouth is, "My little darling would never do that! You are lying!". Well, that all ended when we installed cameras and recorded the whole thing. All it took was playing the tape back to the parents and watch the fireworks. That was a great night!
Slashdot Mirror
Strictly, they said one (1) attack was for IIS.
This wasn't to see whether it was successful or not but to identify the types of attacks and where they are coming from. They state in TFA that next week they let it go full bore to show what happens. Call it a teaser or next weeks
Aunt Bessy goes to OfficeMax and picks out that fancy new HP gadget that everyone is talking about. Of course, she gets the one on clearance sale to save money since it looks just like the one on the shelf. She takes it home, follows the pretty picture diagram that was in the box showing her how to plug things in and hooks it right up to her new cable modem. Since this machine was older, it isn't updated to SP2 yet and to make it worse, her "restore disks" that she has to make are that very same pre-SP2 version. Aunt Bessy doesn't know a thing about firewalls, routers, antivirus, etc. that we all know about. So now here she is hooked up in the raw to the Internet getting attacked every 15 minutes running HP's XP Home which defaults to no password, admin user, yadda, yadda, yadda. Ten seconds into her first experience she gets infected and things go downhill from there. Even if she was to try to run Windows Update, she is still going to get infected before she accomplishes the update.
This problem rests squarely in the lap of Microsoft. They sacrificed security for the all important "ease of use" marketing. Adding in WGA for updates only makes the problem that much worse since it makes people (especially the false positives) not want to update. In short, Microsoft is a menace to networking as if we didn't already know that.
B.
I think you both are missing the true point to this article. The last page says it all when he rolled back and it got rid of all but one (yahoo) toolbar! Try that with IE6. The Yahoo toolbar staying does trouble me though. I can see those others reverse engineering the Yahoo toolbar just to see how it was able to survive the rollback. Still, it is much better than IE6.
B.
One of the many reasons SCOG changed names was to cause confusion in the market as well as the court room and it worked based on what you posted (with the exception of your last sentence). The SCO Group != Santa Cruz Operation (SCO). The name changed after they filed as can be seen from http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/complaint3.06.03. html when they filed as Caldera. The whole idea was to cause as much confusion as possible making their claims seem more plausible. Just keep in mind, the SCO Group exists only for litigation from start to finish.
B.
From a copyright / DRM standpoint, whatever a large politically connected entity like Microsoft does to protect their "Intellectual Property" should worry those who value freedom. Don't think for a moment that Microsoft doesn't push Congress for more extreme measures than even the DMCA gives them. Why else do you think Microsoft is pushing for global software patents so hard?
Money buys large corporations many a legislator and gives them a legal advantage that normal people can never match. They can tie up the legal system for years until they get laws that favor their position pushed through.
In short, it pays to raise a stink when any large corporation unfairly games the system as much as Microsoft does.
B.
and also from TFA:
The guy is scum pure and simple.
B.
"Rather than wasting all the time and effort on doing this - I think the efforts could be better spent simply doing all the patches for the "unsupported" OS's, and *not* the current ones."
I agree. At least those with unsupported OS's are given one more option than they started out with.
"It would still accomplish the same result that most of these security experts seem to want; making MS look bad for their slow response times. (Imagine the embarassment if it turns out you're better and more quickly patched against vulnerabilities by running one of Microsoft's "now unsupported" OS's like Windows '98 or ME than by using their current products!) Plus, it provides needed patches for a marketplace that can't get them anymore any other way."
The moment these 3rd party patches start to outdo Windows Update, expect the lawsuits to fly. Microsoft uses Windows Update for more than updates. WGA is one example of using the update mechanism for ulterior motives. Consider also, the whole reason for EOL is to force users to upgrade rather than continue to use their existing OS. Cut off that reason and Microsoft will surely see you as a threat to their business model.
B.
I know several reasons. Microsoft won't support W2K forever. I expect W2K support to die when Vista has been out for at least a year if not sooner. By support I mean patches for both functionality and security. I have already run into programs that won't install unless it sees Windows XP SP2. It will only get worse when Vista comes out. Also, try buying W2K at your local computer store. I can just about assure you that it isn't on the shelves. The same will happen to XP when Vista hits the market. And lastly, the most common answer from tech support (Microsoft or otherwise) is "an upgrade to $LATESTVERSION will fix your problem".
I am glad that W2K works for you now but sooner or later you will be forced to upgrade. Whether it is from new hardware that won't work in W2K or lack of software that will run on it, you will still be on that upgrade treadmill.
B.
It isn't so much that users find Windows(tm) more useful but that they are resistant to change. Here are my top reasons why most users put up with Windows(tm).
All of these are given at some point to justify why people won't change. Until these issues can be addressed, expect alternative OSes to always be relegated to the also run category.
B.
In the US, the burden of proof is always with the plaintiff. They have NOT shown proof of violation with the list or more to the point I can show that their list is often wrong. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show the violation not the defendant to show that it isn't. I have shown that the list is faulty. If she had a good attorney (which she does since they are asking for them to be thrown out without the files) the attorney would show the same thing.
B.
A "sample" isn't good enough when you are talking per-violation damages. The only thing the "sample " establishes is that those 11 files are 11 violations (if they can show they hold the copyright that is). They are asking for damages for 38 files so they should be able to show FOR EVERY INSTANCE that they are violations. The second story I posted especially shows why. You are asking a jury to grant you damages for items you can't show are violations.
B.
It goes to damages. The damages are determined on a per-violation basis. The RIAA is arguing that they don't need the actual files to be obtainable to prove damages. I have evidence that says that they do:
From:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/10/04/081226
and...
So yes, they need the actual files given this track record especially when they are seeking $150,000+ per file.
B.
"American Psychological Association developed the definition of TV addiction as "heavy television watching that is subjectively experienced as being to some extent involuntary, displacing more productive activities, and difficult to stop or curtail.""
And just who is the one to determine "more productive activities"? The APA? You? The problem the APA has is every slight thing in human behavior to them is a disorder. This is for purpose other than their interest in humanity. When things get called a "disorder" expect that someone wants health insurance to pay for the treatment. Plain and simple.
B.
Most, if not all, states that allow marriage below the age of majority do so with the caveat of "parental consent". It goes back to the shotgun weedings premarital sex would cause in God fearing communities. Far better to allow you to marry them young than have an "out of wedlock" incident.
B.
"It's not meant to be a believable lie. It is a clever political ploy developed by Karl Rove."
Your political agenda aside, it is a tactic that predates Karl Rove by several centuries. It dates back to the career politician. In the 1800s it was slavery and Indian affairs. In the early 1900s it was liqueur. In the mid 1900s it was the Nazis and communism. In the late 1900s it was drugs. Now it is terrorism and "thinkofthechildren". Politicians need something to demonize to show they are "fighting the good fight". So contrary to your rant about the current holders of power, this is nothing new.
I believe that another poster has the right of it. This issue won't go away until you institute term limits for Congress just like they did for the presidency. The chances of seeing this though are slim and none. Asking Congress to institute term limits on themselves just isn't going to happen....Sadly....
B.
Sure! I could use a break from good ol' WV even if it does cost me $100,000,000 Australian Quatloos...
Yes, that is the flaw in my logic IF they weren't served. However, they posted not only the complaint but an answer to it on their website BEFORE the default judgment was entered. To say they knew nothing about it is IMO dishonest to say the least even if technically correct.
That is still neither here nor there as they have a default judgment against them that can be devastating to any spamhaus members that are in the US as well as any assets they may have here. Also, this spammer can use this conviction to further their cause. Do they really want to risk that for one spammer? This issue needs to be addressed not ignored.
B.
I agree it is tough for those caught in the middle of a ISP who supports spammers and spamhaus fight. That is the way is has to be though because nothing else has worked. ISPs aren't just put on the list willy-nilly-neigh. They are given every opertunity and then some to fix their problem. Now it is up to you to put pressure on the ISP where it hurts. If your ISP is more interested in supporting spammers than legit customers, that is something for you to consider.
As for this case, there are several issue that I think should have been done differently. You NEVER ignore a court summons or you run the risk of default judgements like this. The case they had in Florida against the eAmericaMarketing.com (or something like that) shows how to properly handle things like this. Answer the complaint challenging every word in it including jurisdiction, how spamhaus blacklist works, the amount of spam and / or spam support offered by plaintiff, etc. I suspect it would never make it to the discovery phase just like in Florida. It also would give spamhaus the right to file claims of harrassment, extortion, and whatever other UK laws that an action like this would provoke including the original offense of spamming UK residents. And best of all, they could use the same tactic this schmuck is using by filing it in the UK.
I feel ignoring both the charges then the order will really hurt the cause spamhaus is supposed to be pushing.
B.
That is from the ruling under part II. They treated this case as if it were a contract because the district court did.
B.
That's what they mean when the pundents screech "paper trail!". The "paper trail" isn't for the voter to take home but to verify before depositing it in a ballot box. The problem is the voting machines that are produced by and large don't print anything. The votes are recorded inside and transfered to a larger repository for counting. If the count is off, there is no way to recount other than the faulty data in the machine already.
When you consider the ease of simply printing a receipt like slip of paper one has to wonder why they refuse to make them all do it. There is more accountability when you go to the supermarket than when you go vote.
B.
Microsoft reached a settlement with the various states that precludes them from this particular practice. If it can be proved that they are still doing it then not only is it a violation of antitrust but of that settlement. That will have to be seen in court.
But I don't think that is the real issue at all. The problem comes from the interoperability issues that Microsoft faces with their standards. As you noted in your post, it is almost a requirement to use Microsoft products to be able to interact with others that are using it. Add to that the hardware that is specifically designed to only work in Windows and it forces users into purchasing Windows to be able to use that hardware. The effect is the same in that it is economic suicide for OEMs to not pre-install Windows. Also, think of the support nightmares involved in distributing the many alternatives. There are hundreds of Linux distributors alone all with subtle differences in how they operate. And lastly, the OEM is more likely to choose a platform that furthers their interests of selling more hardware. Let's face it, Microsoft based software increases the OEM's sales simply by requiring more resources to run.
B.
I agree that the line you are referring to was a poor choice of words. But the overall premise of the post is still valid. They are treating their customers as if they were pirates with product activation. When the activation fails, it is the customer that has to initiate (sometimes unsuccessfully) the remedy either legit or not. The legit route the GP is referring to is often more expensive in terms of time, effort, and frustration than simply using an illegitimate way. So yes, they are treating their customers as if they are pirates.
B.
Although I agree with you there is a flipside to this argument. The lobbies for the big copyright holders such as Microsoft have skewed the copyright laws to the point of ridiculous. They have bought the politicians to ensure never ending profit from copyrighted works. Ensuring a perpetual profit was never the intention of copyright but that is what it has become. Where in all this is the public domain's intrests protected? After all, it is the public domain that copyright exists in the first place.
B.
The RIAA started by suing big distributors such as Napster before they sued end users. This is just the first step down the new litigation business model for MS. The lawsuits they filed are a direct result of the WGA initiative. It won't be too long before they go after individual people that fail the WGA test after they milk the businesses they are catching for all they can.
As for not having to worry about being legit, I recommend you ask all those that were wrongly identified by WGA if they should be worried.
B.
There is a point where risk outweighs benefit. I don't own a cell phone and never will since they don't work in the hollows of WV. They are expensive annoyances that I live without.
You will find it hard to convince people here that the taxes already collected for road work isn't enough. Besides, unless it is nationally mandated, it is a futile effort for a single state to have it. Nothing prevents a citizen in one state from purchasing a car from another that doesn't have the GPS. They would also have to outlaw tampering with the things. No, this type of scheme is too risky to both the state (loss of revenue due malfunction / tampering) as well as the owner (big brother is watching you).
B.
"Absolutely true- and a point I'm trying to get across to my bosses at Oregon Department of Transportation in their bid to use GPS tech to charge road-mile taxes."
They are trying to gather steam for this notion in my state as well. Schemes like this are just plain silly besides being a HUGE intrusion on privacy. What prevents a stalker from cracking the transmitter this device most assuredly will have and using it to track his victim to their death? The lawyers will have a field day with this one.
B.
"The people who were stealing (or at least who we caught stealing) were almost always the teenage daughters of the rich guys that came to the town for vacations... what gives? Any psychologists reading?"
No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night...;-)
I would suspect (this is just a guess though) that it is thrill / attention seeking behavior. Let's face it, when daddy arrives to pick up the little princess, she finally has his attention.
When I was in college I worked for Burger King down the road from the local high school. Every year they had a game then afterwards would come into the store and proceed to tear the place apart in about half an hour. Confront the parents and the first thing out of their mouth is, "My little darling would never do that! You are lying!". Well, that all ended when we installed cameras and recorded the whole thing. All it took was playing the tape back to the parents and watch the fireworks. That was a great night!
B.