""Just by visiting a Web site, (if) suddenly an executable is created on your machine outside the Internet Explorer folder, it is an exploit with no false positive -- it's that simple," Yi-Ming Wang, senior researcher with Microsoft Research, said during a presentation at the IEEE Security and Privacy conference in Oakland last week."
Want this sillyness fixed? Kill the ActiveX shit! Microsoft created that mess in the first place trying to dominate Java and like usual instead of going for the cause they go for the symptom.
"All one really has to do is purchase a server in another state (or if it becomes national another country) and they are free to do as they wish. Pesonally, I am very much in support of this law and spam laws, but whenever I read about them I just roll my eyes b.c there is no possible way that the internet can be fully policed."
Most of the things this makes "illegal" are already federal offenses. Phishing for example breaks about a dozen federal laws. Bank fraud, trademark violation, wire fraud, etc... Has that stopped the phishers? Last time I checked, I still get them.
As pointed out in other threads, MS itself is guilty according to this law. Programs like their media player, Instant Messenger, even their web browser violates this law. It will be funny to see how they handle that case.
The only thing this law allows (besides political PR) is for a citizen of Washington State to ride on the tailcoat of anyone the feds bust.
"There was no clever plan by Gates & co. to screw IBM over, they simply benefitted from the tremendous inertia that IBM and the cloners had created."
Sure there was from day 1. Why else do you think Gates & co insisted that IBM license (not buy) the codebase and also insisted that that license wasn't exclusive to IBM. The funny thing is in that board room Microsoft didn't have shit. Not a single line of code and if it wasn't for code theft from CP/M there would be no MS-DOS.
As for OS/2, Microsoft was afraid people were going to shift to it and promptly put ther hands into it (much the same way they did with Java). When it was realized that OS/2 wasn't going anywhere soon (but had potential), Microsoft dropped it like a hot potato and promptly proceeded to crush that development.
"Not to troll or anything, but I wonder if Stack could have used a software patent to prevent that?"
They did have a patent. IIRC though it was for their hardware dongle that increased the amount of compression in some way. Don't know if it was on the software. In either event, having a patent still doesn't help you when large companies are able to hold it up for years while you hemorage funds to the blood sucking attornies.
"Maybe there's something to this whole idea of patenting software after all. Sure, the way software patents are being used now is ridiculous, but that doesn't mean the entire concept is rotten."
No, the whole concept IS rotten. It prevents anyone from even entering a market. Eventually everyone looses including Microsoft. I'm just waiting for the great patent wars...Popcorn anyone?
"Free antivirus software from Microsoft would put several billion dollar companies out of business - there's significant overhead costs in running an antivirus company, and with no revenue model, there's no way to stay afloat. The result - Microsoft Antivirus with no competitors. That's bad for the market as a whole."
Let me get this right (and twist the argument around a bit)...
You are saying that something that would be good for users (Microsoft fixing their vulnerabilities [forget for the moment how they are fixing it]) is bad for businesses? This is like saying, "finding cures for diseases is a bad thing because it will put the pharmacutical industry out of business"!
This flies against the face of logic. Then again, we are talking about businesses here. Anything for a buck!
"At the time, everybody was baffled as to why Microsoft wanted to create what looked like a javaScript wannabe for VB kiddies. A few years later, it's clear that they had little other choice but to create.NET if they wanted to remain a player in the corporate IT world."
"Microsoft's shitty security has been a result of a short-sighted lack of emphasis, not capacity. Now that they are making it a priority, I have no doubt that Longhorn will be a relatively secure OS."
This is the same mantra you see from every MS supporter. "Just wait until $VAPORWARE is released, it will be soooo much better!" But it never is. Why is that do you suppose? Could it be that they develop software, not from need, but from focus groups and marketing ploys? When was the last time (hell, when was ANY time) that MS "innovated" a new technology that wasn't marketing driven?
"MS is addicted to infinitely growing dominant marketshares in Office and MS and will do ANYTHING to keep that. "ANYTHING" is daily creating implacable enemies. Stories of large customers migrating from MS are even starting to get boring."
MS isn't the only area where this is a problem. We see it throughout culture (especially in American culture). Why else do you think there is such a problem in the corporate world of ever increasing "sharholder value" causing CEO's to violate laws and wind up in prison? There is only so much growth anything can do before saturation becomes a problem.
You missed my previous point about standards lock-in. The example I gave was a hardware lock-in so lets do one with the standards (just as deadly).
Have you ever gotten a document from someone that was written in Microsoft works? How about one written in Microsoft Publisher? When companies like Microsoft get involved in standards, it is just as locked in as the hardware case.
This isn't entirely true given the lock-in situations created by hardware manufacturers as well as software standards lock-in. Let me give you an example:
There is a Photolab processing business that uses a Diebold developer. The developer allows the processing of raw negatives for 4 color process printing. The hardware only has drivers for Windows NT 4. Those drivers are proprietary and known to not work on Windows 2000 or XP. If the company upgrades to Windows 2000 or XP they lose their maintainance contract.
So what do we have... The company is not only locked into Windows but they are locked into a particular version of Windows. They couldn't switch if they wanted to.
"Has anybody analyzed the TCO of hiring skilled vs. non-skilled people for the IT department?"
That answer would be a resounding NO. No operation is going to hire "non-skilled people" for any department let alone an important one as IT. I take it you mean FOSS skilled instead. (wording is everything).
Having people with the skills in any endeavor is essential for any job. Most TCO comparisions (as you point out) take re-training both the end-users as well as the Admins into account. That is about the only way to justify the large amount of money they claim it costs in the TCO.
Conversely, they never mention the training required for Windows because the assumption is that you are taking people FROM windows to FOSS. It would be interesting to see a TCO the other way around where you have to take a FOSS group and train them for Windows...
"I suppose what you might have meant to say is that Linux gives you choices of these extras, and were installed through various packages off the cd, which there were probably several of due to the added bulk of all the software you could ever need."
It is about choice not just in software applications but in distributions. If you don't like something about Red Hat then you can go with Mandriva, Suse, and yes, even Gentoo. What choice do you have with Windows? It is either use Windows or don't. No middle of the road there.
"Overall, yes, some linux installs are easier than windows installs, assuming you like the bundled software. But then again, I happen to have Windows XP Install ISO that has been updated to SP2, which would GREATLY cut back on the install time."
Which is a good thing but your ISOs are the exception not the rule. And to say that you can get away with ONLY windows is a lie as well. You aren't including anti- spyware/malware/virus software all at a price (if not actual money then in preformance and resources).
Add to that the myriad of install options you get with Linux (everything from clustering to distros that run off pen drives) and the advantages of Linux gains even more. Try installing your XP on a pen drive or on a workstation without a hard drive then get back to us with which is better.
"No. Because you're free to set up your own site and comment. Why the hell should they allow you to post whatever you want on their resources: get your own site."
Sure, that is one answer. Another is to use a site like/. to let others know. The blog they got going is a PR marketing tool and a new one at that. Deleting negative posts has a negative effect on that PR. If their only way to deal with negative comments is to delete them that speaks volumes of their ability to handle it in a PR kind of way.
"Organizations and individuals that store their data in an open format avoid being locked in to a single software vendor, leaving them free to switch software if their current vendor goes out of business or changes their software or licensing terms to something less favorable."
This is only if M$ decides to implement it as the default (something I highly doubt they will do). All the Microsoft Office ludites will still save in the default format M$ specifies. No matter how sad it is, consider this the standard that never was...
"Are you seriously trying to say that punishment is imbued with malicious intent?"
From Wikipedia...
"Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. Express malice occurs when a party only gives notice of the intention to commit a crime. Implied malice occurs when, in the course of nefarious or unlawful doings, a party causes the death of another party."
When you legally put people to death it is for the express purpose of achieving retribution for a past act. In the form of retribution it is with malice.
"Are all parents malicious then when they ground their children?"
If it is done with the idea of retribution then yes.
"What part of my definition do you disagree with? Even if I simplify the definition to "intentional killing with malicious intent", you still must make a case that punishment is imbued with malice in order to definitively claim that capital punishment is murder."
You were the one that set the framework here I didn't. I am of the opinion that capital punishment is wrong mainly because of the hypocritical statement it sends..."It is wrong for you to kill someone but it is ok for US to do it!" There are only 2 reasons to "punish" people. First, to teach them not to do it again. Since you are talking about the death penalty it follows to show you are not trying to teach that offender any lesson. Second, to exact retribution in an attempt to show others the "consequences". In the case of capital punishment, this is exactly what you are doing. Hence it is done with malice.
"I believe a strong definition of "murder" is an intentional, premeditated killing with malice. Thus, capital punishment is killing, not murder."
Well that's some twisted logic but I'll work within your framework...
Is capital punsihment intentional? Given that prosecutors must seek the death penalty specifically, that would be a yes...
Is it premeditated? Given that the US has considered many forms of putting people to death and have decided to rest on lethal injection (for the most part) and it is planned from the start to happen at a set time on a set date with a set group of witnesses the answer is yes...
Is it done with malice? It has been described as, "The ulitmate punishment" by Supreme Court justices. Being a punishment it definately is done with malice.
And your point above holds that it is murder! Just because it is state sanctioned murder doesn't make it any less a murder.
That is tax free revenue. Settlements aren't taxed. Welcome to the RIAA new business model the OP states they need...Threaten to sue, get tax free money!
"So... how are you going to use their books to prove that you didn't do it? If you don't have a good reason, the request will be challenged, and you'll lose."
It would go to the RICO counter-suit I would file along with the request for the 10,000 other cases they settled...
"Well, once a suit has been commenced, RIAA will have access to discovery procedures"
And discovery goes both ways...It would be a chance to get their books opened up for one.
"Plus, they're a big industry association with a good reputation. You're just some guy, and are probably a music pirate. They have a lot to lose if they aren't straightforward, and copyright suits are so open-and-shut, especially factually, that there's not even a good reason for them to make it up."
No....They would NEVER make them up...Dead people are all pirates according to the RIAA...
Microsoft makes itself a big target not only politically but technologically. It is their "extend, embrace, extinguish" attitude that got them into this mess (and other messes as well) when they integrated all their competition's code into the OS. It is sad really that "innovation" to Microsoft really means "acquire".
The whole point of a Trademark is for brand recognition. That is why companies are supposed to use unique words as trademarks. Common words cannot be considered for trademark. The Windows trademark case already set this precidence when Microsoft was sued by Apple over the use of the word Window. TigerDirect is their trademark NOT Tiger. They are claiming trademark on a common word. Of course, that is one the lawyers will have to wrangle through.
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA...
""Just by visiting a Web site, (if) suddenly an executable is created on your machine outside the Internet Explorer folder, it is an exploit with no false positive -- it's that simple," Yi-Ming Wang, senior researcher with Microsoft Research, said during a presentation at the IEEE Security and Privacy conference in Oakland last week."
Want this sillyness fixed? Kill the ActiveX shit! Microsoft created that mess in the first place trying to dominate Java and like usual instead of going for the cause they go for the symptom.
B.
"All one really has to do is purchase a server in another state (or if it becomes national another country) and they are free to do as they wish. Pesonally, I am very much in support of this law and spam laws, but whenever I read about them I just roll my eyes b.c there is no possible way that the internet can be fully policed."
Most of the things this makes "illegal" are already federal offenses. Phishing for example breaks about a dozen federal laws. Bank fraud, trademark violation, wire fraud, etc... Has that stopped the phishers? Last time I checked, I still get them.
As pointed out in other threads, MS itself is guilty according to this law. Programs like their media player, Instant Messenger, even their web browser violates this law. It will be funny to see how they handle that case.
The only thing this law allows (besides political PR) is for a citizen of Washington State to ride on the tailcoat of anyone the feds bust.
B.
"There was no clever plan by Gates & co. to screw IBM over, they simply benefitted from the tremendous inertia that IBM and the cloners had created."
Sure there was from day 1. Why else do you think Gates & co insisted that IBM license (not buy) the codebase and also insisted that that license wasn't exclusive to IBM. The funny thing is in that board room Microsoft didn't have shit. Not a single line of code and if it wasn't for code theft from CP/M there would be no MS-DOS.
As for OS/2, Microsoft was afraid people were going to shift to it and promptly put ther hands into it (much the same way they did with Java). When it was realized that OS/2 wasn't going anywhere soon (but had potential), Microsoft dropped it like a hot potato and promptly proceeded to crush that development.
B.
"Not to troll or anything, but I wonder if Stack could have used a software patent to prevent that?"
They did have a patent. IIRC though it was for their hardware dongle that increased the amount of compression in some way. Don't know if it was on the software. In either event, having a patent still doesn't help you when large companies are able to hold it up for years while you hemorage funds to the blood sucking attornies.
"Maybe there's something to this whole idea of patenting software after all. Sure, the way software patents are being used now is ridiculous, but that doesn't mean the entire concept is rotten."
No, the whole concept IS rotten. It prevents anyone from even entering a market. Eventually everyone looses including Microsoft. I'm just waiting for the great patent wars...Popcorn anyone?
B.
"Free antivirus software from Microsoft would put several billion dollar companies out of business - there's significant overhead costs in running an antivirus company, and with no revenue model, there's no way to stay afloat. The result - Microsoft Antivirus with no competitors. That's bad for the market as a whole."
Let me get this right (and twist the argument around a bit)...
You are saying that something that would be good for users (Microsoft fixing their vulnerabilities [forget for the moment how they are fixing it]) is bad for businesses? This is like saying, "finding cures for diseases is a bad thing because it will put the pharmacutical industry out of business"!
This flies against the face of logic. Then again, we are talking about businesses here. Anything for a buck!
B.
"At the time, everybody was baffled as to why Microsoft wanted to create what looked like a javaScript wannabe for VB kiddies. A few years later, it's clear that they had little other choice but to create .NET if they wanted to remain a player in the corporate IT world."
And that just proved it was marketing driven...
B.
"Microsoft's shitty security has been a result of a short-sighted lack of emphasis, not capacity. Now that they are making it a priority, I have no doubt that Longhorn will be a relatively secure OS."
This is the same mantra you see from every MS supporter. "Just wait until $VAPORWARE is released, it will be soooo much better!" But it never is. Why is that do you suppose? Could it be that they develop software, not from need, but from focus groups and marketing ploys? When was the last time (hell, when was ANY time) that MS "innovated" a new technology that wasn't marketing driven?
B.
"MS is addicted to infinitely growing dominant marketshares in Office and MS and will do ANYTHING to keep that. "ANYTHING" is daily creating implacable enemies. Stories of large customers migrating from MS are even starting to get boring."
MS isn't the only area where this is a problem. We see it throughout culture (especially in American culture). Why else do you think there is such a problem in the corporate world of ever increasing "sharholder value" causing CEO's to violate laws and wind up in prison? There is only so much growth anything can do before saturation becomes a problem.
B.
You missed my previous point about standards lock-in. The example I gave was a hardware lock-in so lets do one with the standards (just as deadly).
Have you ever gotten a document from someone that was written in Microsoft works? How about one written in Microsoft Publisher? When companies like Microsoft get involved in standards, it is just as locked in as the hardware case.
B.
This isn't entirely true given the lock-in situations created by hardware manufacturers as well as software standards lock-in. Let me give you an example:
There is a Photolab processing business that uses a Diebold developer. The developer allows the processing of raw negatives for 4 color process printing. The hardware only has drivers for Windows NT 4. Those drivers are proprietary and known to not work on Windows 2000 or XP. If the company upgrades to Windows 2000 or XP they lose their maintainance contract.
So what do we have... The company is not only locked into Windows but they are locked into a particular version of Windows. They couldn't switch if they wanted to.
B.
"Has anybody analyzed the TCO of hiring skilled vs. non-skilled people for the IT department?"
That answer would be a resounding NO. No operation is going to hire "non-skilled people" for any department let alone an important one as IT. I take it you mean FOSS skilled instead. (wording is everything).
Having people with the skills in any endeavor is essential for any job. Most TCO comparisions (as you point out) take re-training both the end-users as well as the Admins into account. That is about the only way to justify the large amount of money they claim it costs in the TCO.
Conversely, they never mention the training required for Windows because the assumption is that you are taking people FROM windows to FOSS. It would be interesting to see a TCO the other way around where you have to take a FOSS group and train them for Windows...
B.
"I suppose what you might have meant to say is that Linux gives you choices of these extras, and were installed through various packages off the cd, which there were probably several of due to the added bulk of all the software you could ever need."
It is about choice not just in software applications but in distributions. If you don't like something about Red Hat then you can go with Mandriva, Suse, and yes, even Gentoo. What choice do you have with Windows? It is either use Windows or don't. No middle of the road there.
"Overall, yes, some linux installs are easier than windows installs, assuming you like the bundled software. But then again, I happen to have Windows XP Install ISO that has been updated to SP2, which would GREATLY cut back on the install time."
Which is a good thing but your ISOs are the exception not the rule. And to say that you can get away with ONLY windows is a lie as well. You aren't including anti- spyware/malware/virus software all at a price (if not actual money then in preformance and resources).
Add to that the myriad of install options you get with Linux (everything from clustering to distros that run off pen drives) and the advantages of Linux gains even more. Try installing your XP on a pen drive or on a workstation without a hard drive then get back to us with which is better.
B.
"No. Because you're free to set up your own site and comment. Why the hell should they allow you to post whatever you want on their resources: get your own site."
/. to let others know. The blog they got going is a PR marketing tool and a new one at that. Deleting negative posts has a negative effect on that PR. If their only way to deal with negative comments is to delete them that speaks volumes of their ability to handle it in a PR kind of way.
Sure, that is one answer. Another is to use a site like
B.
"Organizations and individuals that store their data in an open format avoid being locked in to a single software vendor, leaving them free to switch software if their current vendor goes out of business or changes their software or licensing terms to something less favorable."
This is only if M$ decides to implement it as the default (something I highly doubt they will do). All the Microsoft Office ludites will still save in the default format M$ specifies. No matter how sad it is, consider this the standard that never was...
B.
"Are you seriously trying to say that punishment is imbued with malicious intent?"
From Wikipedia...
"Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. Express malice occurs when a party only gives notice of the intention to commit a crime. Implied malice occurs when, in the course of nefarious or unlawful doings, a party causes the death of another party."
When you legally put people to death it is for the express purpose of achieving retribution for a past act. In the form of retribution it is with malice.
"Are all parents malicious then when they ground their children?"
If it is done with the idea of retribution then yes.
"What part of my definition do you disagree with? Even if I simplify the definition to "intentional killing with malicious intent", you still must make a case that punishment is imbued with malice in order to definitively claim that capital punishment is murder."
You were the one that set the framework here I didn't. I am of the opinion that capital punishment is wrong mainly because of the hypocritical statement it sends..."It is wrong for you to kill someone but it is ok for US to do it!" There are only 2 reasons to "punish" people. First, to teach them not to do it again. Since you are talking about the death penalty it follows to show you are not trying to teach that offender any lesson. Second, to exact retribution in an attempt to show others the "consequences". In the case of capital punishment, this is exactly what you are doing. Hence it is done with malice.
B.
"I believe a strong definition of "murder" is an intentional, premeditated killing with malice. Thus, capital punishment is killing, not murder."
Well that's some twisted logic but I'll work within your framework...
Is capital punsihment intentional? Given that prosecutors must seek the death penalty specifically, that would be a yes...
Is it premeditated? Given that the US has considered many forms of putting people to death and have decided to rest on lethal injection (for the most part) and it is planned from the start to happen at a set time on a set date with a set group of witnesses the answer is yes...
Is it done with malice? It has been described as, "The ulitmate punishment" by Supreme Court justices. Being a punishment it definately is done with malice.
And your point above holds that it is murder! Just because it is state sanctioned murder doesn't make it any less a murder.
B.
"3) Cash in cool $5,000,000,000 of revenue"
That is tax free revenue. Settlements aren't taxed. Welcome to the RIAA new business model the OP states they need...Threaten to sue, get tax free money!
B.
ROFLMAO....Oh, if I had Mod points! This is too funny!
B.
There is also ACB Radio's Treasure Trove.
e master&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=10&MMN_posit ion=22:22
http://www.acbradio.org/pweb/index.php?module=pag
It does most of the old time radio shows back exclusivly.
B.
"So... how are you going to use their books to prove that you didn't do it? If you don't have a good reason, the request will be challenged, and you'll lose."
It would go to the RICO counter-suit I would file along with the request for the 10,000 other cases they settled...
B.
"Well, once a suit has been commenced, RIAA will have access to discovery procedures"
d _Grandmother/1107532260
And discovery goes both ways...It would be a chance to get their books opened up for one.
"Plus, they're a big industry association with a good reputation. You're just some guy, and are probably a music pirate. They have a lot to lose if they aren't straightforward, and copyright suits are so open-and-shut, especially factually, that there's not even a good reason for them to make it up."
No....They would NEVER make them up...Dead people are all pirates according to the RIAA...
http://www.betanews.com/article/RIAA_Sues_Decease
B.
Microsoft makes itself a big target not only politically but technologically. It is their "extend, embrace, extinguish" attitude that got them into this mess (and other messes as well) when they integrated all their competition's code into the OS. It is sad really that "innovation" to Microsoft really means "acquire".
B.
"Put a Tiger in your Tank was a slogan for Exxo"
It is Esso not Exxo...
B.
The whole point of a Trademark is for brand recognition. That is why companies are supposed to use unique words as trademarks. Common words cannot be considered for trademark. The Windows trademark case already set this precidence when Microsoft was sued by Apple over the use of the word Window. TigerDirect is their trademark NOT Tiger. They are claiming trademark on a common word. Of course, that is one the lawyers will have to wrangle through.
B.
Tony the Tiger (Kellog)
Put a Tiger in your tank (Exxon)
The Bengal Tigers (NFL)
I'm sure you can think of many more...
B.