Well said. There are two popular current commercial GUIs right now, Mac and Windows. Why don't we hear anyone saying how Apple should change the OSX interface to match Windows? On top of that, there are at least two versions of Microsoft Windows in common use with different interfaces. KDE is enough similar to either of these to allow a reasonably competent user to get around, and many low end users couldn't find Windows Explorer on a Microsoft machine if it bit them in the ass.
The whole 'standard interface' argument is overrated. Yes we could use some standard locations for some things, but the GUI isn't really the problem. The biggest obstacle to widespread linux adoption at this point is hardware and software support. Printing can be difficult and the average user couldn't download images from their digital camera in easily. Plus, there are many major software applications used in either homes or busineses (Quickbooks, Photoshop). If these two issues were resolved Linux adoption would go way up, unfortunately control of these issues aren't with Linux developers.
This is coming from a UNIX guy, and I hate to say it but MS is the market that matters if you want to eat unless you're doing J2EE.
Or php, or ajax, or mysql. The web is where the real money is right now. Didn't you hear, it's on 2.0.
As such Visual Studio is the answer.
Why? Trolltech's Qt is a much better foundation class than anything Microsoft puts out. I believe Eclipse is widely accepted. Visual Studio is not the end all, be all of IDEs.
I'm sure there's going to be a hyooge uprising against DRM (just like everybody storming D.C. over the Patriot act.. gimme a break) and they're (you know, "The Man") going to be forced to either drop DRM or open source all of it (or maybe DVD Jon can reverse engineer it! *snicker*).
The problem with DRM to date is it's largely unenforceable. Trust me, if the movie studios, TV studios and music labels could figure out how to effectively include DRM, they would. There's a reason why DVD encryption was so simple to crack, if it's difficult it would get in the way of the user experience. DRM is a beautiful dream for proprietary IP suppliers, but it's just a dream. Heck, I remember when software companies were trying to include copy protection in their software when I was in Jr. High. We were 12 and cracking the encryption. If they haven't been able to make headway in the last 20 years why would you think they will in the next 20?
If it's not MS it'll be another commercial OS. Get used to it.
I have no problem with a commercial OS, even if provided by Microsoft. I do have a problem with the Windows architecture and kernel. Why not standardize on an open source widely available kernel and build your OS around that? Red Hat is a commercial OS, so is Linspire, Xandros, Solaris and any number of other Unixes. This isn't Pollyana bullshit. Linux is the reality, IBM believes it, HP belives it, Walmart believes it, why don't you?
Well, if a PTO examiner catches you trying to register a generic term as a trademark, he'll just reject the application, and you lose filing fee. And third parties can file oppositions whilst it's still pending. But when discussing genericide, we're talking about marks that were trademarks and became generic over time. Thus, the PTO wouldn't catch it. Instead some competitor ends up using the mark, there's a lawsuit, and a court ends up finding that the mark is now generic and thus unprotectable.
In this case, I would imagine that someone could start publishing comic books that clearly use the SUPERHERO mark, and either wait to be sued, or start by filing a declaratory suit. Then you'd basically want to cite a lot of literature (dictionary definitions, articles in popular media), conduct customer surveys (which must be done very carefully -- poorly crafted surveys can lose your case for you), etc. all to show that the public thinks of superheroes as referring to superheroes generically, rather than only those that come from DC and Marvel. Of course, it's not that cheap.
So, if I understand correctly, what you are saying is that the superhero mark may not be defendable as a trademark, but the comic listed in the article would have to actually take it to court to find out. The comic in this article likely could have superhero declared generic, but just the indimidation of facing giants like Marvel and DC in a court room are enough to sopt usage of the term.
Most people I know would just call it a bar, or maybe a club depending on the atmosphere and location. Since disco is considered, at least here in the US, to have died in 1980 I thought your comment made your post sound like someone 25 years out of the loop. Your original point is absolutely correct - most places that play music generally keep the volume very high.
I may despise Windows, but i'll never say it isn't a good OS. If you want to make money, it's better for development, and development tools are easier.
Now what exactly do you mean by the statement, "it's better for development"? What kind of development? An experienced developer can often develop as fast or faster in a Linux environment. There are good IDEs for Linux. Any cross platform development is better supported in Linux. Now if your intention is to say that software released for the Windows platform is more comercially viable, that is probably true, although many of the new money making applications have been web based and built on Apache servers. Also, if you are trying to say that someone new to software development would have an easier time using Windows tools to create a new commercial app, that is probably believable as well.
buying Windows and Symantec's security suite is ten times better. It works out of the box, it has support, and is updated for viruses.
I have had some friends recently that have not had such good luck with Symantec's security suite. It has not worked properly and disabled some utilities and applications that were needed. They are definitely not the only ones, there are many dispariging posts flying around concerning Symantec's easy of use and overall quality. Security is not an easy thing to come by. Linux's reputation as being more secure is based on the principle that standard users are not allowed access to critical areas of the OS. This inherent security makes Linux more difficult to use. Windows is easier to use, but less secure. When additional security is added, like Symantec, things like online gaming and instant messaging can become more problematic for standard users.
Windows is better, hands down because everyone knows it, it's UI is beautiful and easy to use to most people, there is a great deal of software support for it, and games are written for it.
'Because everyone knows it' is not good logic. I have seen many beautiful UIs for X, and many have functionality modeled after Windows. If you don't think there is significant software support for Linux go to freshmeat.net - there are thousands of apps available. The one bit of truth here is games. Most games are written exclusively for the Windows platform.
If you are willing to spend money, there's nearly nothing you can do with Linux that you can't do with Windows.
OTOH, if you are willing to spend the money, there is absolutely nothing you can do with Windows that you can't do with Linux. Codeweavers and wine have shown it's possible to emulate a Windows system with Linux and run most popular apps.
I believe Windows still has it's place. It will until a Linux distribution like Linspire gets some traction in the consumer market. Ultimately this is really a silly argument. Linux is a base architecture. A skin can be dropped over the top to make it look and behave in any way imaginable. More and more users are going to convert and eventually major software companies like Adobe will start to port their products across. Unless Microsoft pulls some serious rabbits out of their hat, Windows in inevitably doomed.
Why is this news? Who ever proposed the idea that site layout, color scheme and overall visual appeal had any corellation at all with it's money making abilities? Sites are visited and, more importantly, revisited due to content. The more visitors, the more ads get clicked, the more money is made.
Nice looking quality sites have their place. I would encourage any offline business that has a site to create a site that reflects positively on their company. Anyone working in design or arts should probably have a site that reflects on their work. For most of the rest of us, beauty is just a bonus. Content is much more important than the beauty or ugliness of the site.
Many trademarks do undergo genericide: elevator, escalator, thermos, shredded wheat, trampoline, cellophane, etc.
What do you mean by genericide? Are all the terms you listed no longer protected by trademark law? I went to www.thermos.com and there is a registered trademark symbol next to their name. Could I come out with a vacuum bottle with a brand name of Bob's Thermos without getting sued? How about Kleenex, it seems subject to genericide, but they still run all their commercials with the registered trademark symbol?
Is there some kind of review process in the trademark office that determines when a term is too generic to be used as a trademark, or does each case have to be proven in court first?
the term "superhero" doesn't refer to anything in particular, but rather a generic set of things.
If the term is trademarked, wouldn't "superhero" be defined as a type of fictional character created in Marvel and DC comic books?
The thing to remember about trademarks is that they are unique to market segments. The use of the "superhero" trademark should be limited to fictional characters. Legally, it could be used as the name of a sandwich or the name of a vacuum cleaner since they are in different market segments.
My big question is why does Microsoft even care if there's a bright future for IE? Have they ever actually got a significant ROI from the browser wars? Has IE generated enough additional sales to justify all of the bad press and lawsuits that have stemmed from it's poor security and integration into the OS?
Would I be against mandatory intelligence/DNA testing required by some big brother government used to determine whether or not I could be a citizen or vote? Of course I would.
Interesting... I'm not so sure I would be against a mandatory intelligence test. I would want it to be at the time of the voting and the results not stored, but the number of stupid voters out there does concern me.
Additionally, I think there is a very strong division between the private sector and the legal sector.
So do I, but again I'm not sure we are on the same side of this argument. If anything, I believe the standards should be MUCH more stringent in pursuit of a legal argument.
Try looking at it from the viewpoint of the people who lost money because of this man.
OTOH, look at it from the viewpoint of the man accused. What if he's not guilty? What if there is information in his email that's not illegal, but private and personal? Should he not have rights? The concept that this person allegedly stole money from these people is NOT adequate to circumvent his rights. There's a reason we have ammendments to the Constitution concerning proper methods of search and seizure. In this particular case the warrant is issued by a judge, correct procedure appears to have been followed and there probably is a reasonable expectation that there may be evidence in his deleted email. I completely agree. If he left information on a web-based, third party, free service and it lands him in the pokey, I'm for it.
the average user doesn't even know you can plug things in.
The average user may not, but many, many do. I'm more of an Opera guy than firefox, but one thing I REALLY like in firefox is the plugin interface. Two clicks and I'm on a site that lists plugins. Two more clicks and I've installed some cool new widget. The plugin interface can't be beat. IE could definitely benefit from features like that.
Microsoft took on Borland, Novell, Sun, Wordperfect and Netscape on a much more individual fashion, and on their own terms. They challenged all of them in the software arena.
The current situation is completely different. Now Microsoft is attempting to challenge Sony on hardware, Apple and Google on web services, IBM on big business, Linux on small business servers, etc... IBM is actually doing quite well on their consulting. They are using Linux for an OS and have sold much of their hardware divisions. IBM has figured out the money is in the service, not in the products themselves. Microsoft is going to have an extremely difficult time fighting this.
I understand your point, but I'm betting you're not as cavalier as you seem. Most of us have some information, past or present, that we don't really want getting public exposure. I think some degree of privacy is good.
My thought is more along the lines that anyone dumb enough to use gmail for financial corresondence DESERVES to get caught. This guy appearantly had a lot of money and was involved in illegal activities. Why would he used unencrypted email for anything?
Yeah, I thought that too. My bigger concern is what happens after this deal is up? Worst part is there's no reason I can see to give VeriSign control. Somebody must be getting a kickback.
Expensive domains will shrink the market. Hosting is cheap because of the huge market and all the competition. Everybody buys a $7 domain and wants to host a site for $5 a month. Increase the domain cost, the market dries up. Only people willing to pay $100/year for a domain will have a site, competitors will drop out and prices will go up.
The biggest problem here is that most of the politicans making decisions like this are old men that tend not to understand what they are making decisions about.
I don't think that's the biggest problem here at all. I think there are two major problems with our government that are illustrated in this discussion.
Politicians are only out to please their constituents. The government officials in Washington have been elected by a constituency that thinks gambling is a sin, so they believe passing a law like this will get them re-elected.
There are people in this country, maybe even our lawmakers, that think things magically change when you pass a law. If drugs are outlawed we won't have a problem. If we have stronger hate laws we racial tension will go away. If we say online casinos are illegal, they just won't exist anymore. Nevermind that this is completely untrue and there are multitudes of laws on the books that are unenforcable, underfuned or just ignored.
Actually I think you explained your idea very well. Although I have not actually done any online gambling, I have heard that it can be difficult to get an account setup. This may be part of the reason. If a player commits fraud in a manner similar to what you outlined above I don't see how an offshore online casino would have any recourse.
The post-war spike in the graph you linked to is close to the pre-prohibition levels. The data could be interepreted in any number of ways. The depression ran from 1929 to the late 30's. By the time the amendment was repealed many people didn't have money to by alcohol. After that many young men, a demographic I would imagine is responsible for large amounts of alcohol consumption, were out of the country - many of whom were killed in action. It doesn't appear that consumption increased again until the baby boomer generation started to grow up in the late 60's/early 70's.
Also looked at the article you linked to and didn't see much support for ongoing effects of prohibition on consumption. Unless you have a more substantial analysis of this data to link to I'm going to have a difficult time believing your statement that Prohibition reduced the long term per capita consumption of alcohol.
What's really frightinging is that this audit was done by a congressional committee, who, by our post is inherently incompetent. The incompetent oversight committee actually found security holes, how glaring did the incompetence of DHS have to be???
Slashdot Mirror
Well said. There are two popular current commercial GUIs right now, Mac and Windows. Why don't we hear anyone saying how Apple should change the OSX interface to match Windows? On top of that, there are at least two versions of Microsoft Windows in common use with different interfaces. KDE is enough similar to either of these to allow a reasonably competent user to get around, and many low end users couldn't find Windows Explorer on a Microsoft machine if it bit them in the ass.
The whole 'standard interface' argument is overrated. Yes we could use some standard locations for some things, but the GUI isn't really the problem. The biggest obstacle to widespread linux adoption at this point is hardware and software support. Printing can be difficult and the average user couldn't download images from their digital camera in easily. Plus, there are many major software applications used in either homes or busineses (Quickbooks, Photoshop). If these two issues were resolved Linux adoption would go way up, unfortunately control of these issues aren't with Linux developers.
This is coming from a UNIX guy, and I hate to say it but MS is the market that matters if you want to eat unless you're doing J2EE.
Or php, or ajax, or mysql. The web is where the real money is right now. Didn't you hear, it's on 2.0.
As such Visual Studio is the answer.
Why? Trolltech's Qt is a much better foundation class than anything Microsoft puts out. I believe Eclipse is widely accepted. Visual Studio is not the end all, be all of IDEs.
I'm sure there's going to be a hyooge uprising against DRM (just like everybody storming D.C. over the Patriot act.. gimme a break) and they're (you know, "The Man") going to be forced to either drop DRM or open source all of it (or maybe DVD Jon can reverse engineer it! *snicker*).
The problem with DRM to date is it's largely unenforceable. Trust me, if the movie studios, TV studios and music labels could figure out how to effectively include DRM, they would. There's a reason why DVD encryption was so simple to crack, if it's difficult it would get in the way of the user experience. DRM is a beautiful dream for proprietary IP suppliers, but it's just a dream. Heck, I remember when software companies were trying to include copy protection in their software when I was in Jr. High. We were 12 and cracking the encryption. If they haven't been able to make headway in the last 20 years why would you think they will in the next 20?
If it's not MS it'll be another commercial OS. Get used to it.
I have no problem with a commercial OS, even if provided by Microsoft. I do have a problem with the Windows architecture and kernel. Why not standardize on an open source widely available kernel and build your OS around that? Red Hat is a commercial OS, so is Linspire, Xandros, Solaris and any number of other Unixes. This isn't Pollyana bullshit. Linux is the reality, IBM believes it, HP belives it, Walmart believes it, why don't you?
Well, if a PTO examiner catches you trying to register a generic term as a trademark, he'll just reject the application, and you lose filing fee. And third parties can file oppositions whilst it's still pending. But when discussing genericide, we're talking about marks that were trademarks and became generic over time. Thus, the PTO wouldn't catch it. Instead some competitor ends up using the mark, there's a lawsuit, and a court ends up finding that the mark is now generic and thus unprotectable.
In this case, I would imagine that someone could start publishing comic books that clearly use the SUPERHERO mark, and either wait to be sued, or start by filing a declaratory suit. Then you'd basically want to cite a lot of literature (dictionary definitions, articles in popular media), conduct customer surveys (which must be done very carefully -- poorly crafted surveys can lose your case for you), etc. all to show that the public thinks of superheroes as referring to superheroes generically, rather than only those that come from DC and Marvel. Of course, it's not that cheap.
So, if I understand correctly, what you are saying is that the superhero mark may not be defendable as a trademark, but the comic listed in the article would have to actually take it to court to find out. The comic in this article likely could have superhero declared generic, but just the indimidation of facing giants like Marvel and DC in a court room are enough to sopt usage of the term.
Most people I know would just call it a bar, or maybe a club depending on the atmosphere and location. Since disco is considered, at least here in the US, to have died in 1980 I thought your comment made your post sound like someone 25 years out of the loop. Your original point is absolutely correct - most places that play music generally keep the volume very high.
I may despise Windows, but i'll never say it isn't a good OS. If you want to make money, it's better for development, and development tools are easier.
Now what exactly do you mean by the statement, "it's better for development"? What kind of development? An experienced developer can often develop as fast or faster in a Linux environment. There are good IDEs for Linux. Any cross platform development is better supported in Linux. Now if your intention is to say that software released for the Windows platform is more comercially viable, that is probably true, although many of the new money making applications have been web based and built on Apache servers. Also, if you are trying to say that someone new to software development would have an easier time using Windows tools to create a new commercial app, that is probably believable as well.
buying Windows and Symantec's security suite is ten times better. It works out of the box, it has support, and is updated for viruses.
I have had some friends recently that have not had such good luck with Symantec's security suite. It has not worked properly and disabled some utilities and applications that were needed. They are definitely not the only ones, there are many dispariging posts flying around concerning Symantec's easy of use and overall quality. Security is not an easy thing to come by. Linux's reputation as being more secure is based on the principle that standard users are not allowed access to critical areas of the OS. This inherent security makes Linux more difficult to use. Windows is easier to use, but less secure. When additional security is added, like Symantec, things like online gaming and instant messaging can become more problematic for standard users.
Windows is better, hands down because everyone knows it, it's UI is beautiful and easy to use to most people, there is a great deal of software support for it, and games are written for it.
'Because everyone knows it' is not good logic. I have seen many beautiful UIs for X, and many have functionality modeled after Windows. If you don't think there is significant software support for Linux go to freshmeat.net - there are thousands of apps available. The one bit of truth here is games. Most games are written exclusively for the Windows platform.
If you are willing to spend money, there's nearly nothing you can do with Linux that you can't do with Windows.
OTOH, if you are willing to spend the money, there is absolutely nothing you can do with Windows that you can't do with Linux. Codeweavers and wine have shown it's possible to emulate a Windows system with Linux and run most popular apps.
I believe Windows still has it's place. It will until a Linux distribution like Linspire gets some traction in the consumer market. Ultimately this is really a silly argument. Linux is a base architecture. A skin can be dropped over the top to make it look and behave in any way imaginable. More and more users are going to convert and eventually major software companies like Adobe will start to port their products across. Unless Microsoft pulls some serious rabbits out of their hat, Windows in inevitably doomed.
Why is this news? Who ever proposed the idea that site layout, color scheme and overall visual appeal had any corellation at all with it's money making abilities? Sites are visited and, more importantly, revisited due to content. The more visitors, the more ads get clicked, the more money is made.
Nice looking quality sites have their place. I would encourage any offline business that has a site to create a site that reflects positively on their company. Anyone working in design or arts should probably have a site that reflects on their work. For most of the rest of us, beauty is just a bonus. Content is much more important than the beauty or ugliness of the site.
the problem is that in the discos (or whatever they're called now)
Wow, that's classic. Welcome to 1981.
Many trademarks do undergo genericide: elevator, escalator, thermos, shredded wheat, trampoline, cellophane, etc.
What do you mean by genericide? Are all the terms you listed no longer protected by trademark law? I went to www.thermos.com and there is a registered trademark symbol next to their name. Could I come out with a vacuum bottle with a brand name of Bob's Thermos without getting sued? How about Kleenex, it seems subject to genericide, but they still run all their commercials with the registered trademark symbol?
Is there some kind of review process in the trademark office that determines when a term is too generic to be used as a trademark, or does each case have to be proven in court first?
the term "superhero" doesn't refer to anything in particular, but rather a generic set of things.
If the term is trademarked, wouldn't "superhero" be defined as a type of fictional character created in Marvel and DC comic books?
The thing to remember about trademarks is that they are unique to market segments. The use of the "superhero" trademark should be limited to fictional characters. Legally, it could be used as the name of a sandwich or the name of a vacuum cleaner since they are in different market segments.
I remember someone saying that you never get rich betting against Bill Gates.
Maybe, but I remember someone saying you never get fired for buying from IBM.
My big question is why does Microsoft even care if there's a bright future for IE? Have they ever actually got a significant ROI from the browser wars? Has IE generated enough additional sales to justify all of the bad press and lawsuits that have stemmed from it's poor security and integration into the OS?
Would I be against mandatory intelligence/DNA testing required by some big brother government used to determine whether or not I could be a citizen or vote? Of course I would.
Interesting... I'm not so sure I would be against a mandatory intelligence test. I would want it to be at the time of the voting and the results not stored, but the number of stupid voters out there does concern me.
Additionally, I think there is a very strong division between the private sector and the legal sector.
So do I, but again I'm not sure we are on the same side of this argument. If anything, I believe the standards should be MUCH more stringent in pursuit of a legal argument.
Try looking at it from the viewpoint of the people who lost money because of this man.
OTOH, look at it from the viewpoint of the man accused. What if he's not guilty? What if there is information in his email that's not illegal, but private and personal? Should he not have rights? The concept that this person allegedly stole money from these people is NOT adequate to circumvent his rights. There's a reason we have ammendments to the Constitution concerning proper methods of search and seizure. In this particular case the warrant is issued by a judge, correct procedure appears to have been followed and there probably is a reasonable expectation that there may be evidence in his deleted email. I completely agree. If he left information on a web-based, third party, free service and it lands him in the pokey, I'm for it.
My stats show about 79% consistently for the last few months. 79 may not be far from 90, but it's the difference between a C and an A.
the average user doesn't even know you can plug things in.
The average user may not, but many, many do. I'm more of an Opera guy than firefox, but one thing I REALLY like in firefox is the plugin interface. Two clicks and I'm on a site that lists plugins. Two more clicks and I've installed some cool new widget. The plugin interface can't be beat. IE could definitely benefit from features like that.
Microsoft took on Borland, Novell, Sun, Wordperfect and Netscape on a much more individual fashion, and on their own terms. They challenged all of them in the software arena.
The current situation is completely different. Now Microsoft is attempting to challenge Sony on hardware, Apple and Google on web services, IBM on big business, Linux on small business servers, etc... IBM is actually doing quite well on their consulting. They are using Linux for an OS and have sold much of their hardware divisions. IBM has figured out the money is in the service, not in the products themselves. Microsoft is going to have an extremely difficult time fighting this.
Kind of funny
Didn't Ballmer get the memo? Microsoft is 'The Man' these days, not IBM.
I understand your point, but I'm betting you're not as cavalier as you seem. Most of us have some information, past or present, that we don't really want getting public exposure. I think some degree of privacy is good. My thought is more along the lines that anyone dumb enough to use gmail for financial corresondence DESERVES to get caught. This guy appearantly had a lot of money and was involved in illegal activities. Why would he used unencrypted email for anything?
Yeah, I thought that too. My bigger concern is what happens after this deal is up? Worst part is there's no reason I can see to give VeriSign control. Somebody must be getting a kickback.
Expensive domains will shrink the market. Hosting is cheap because of the huge market and all the competition. Everybody buys a $7 domain and wants to host a site for $5 a month. Increase the domain cost, the market dries up. Only people willing to pay $100/year for a domain will have a site, competitors will drop out and prices will go up.
I don't think that's the biggest problem here at all. I think there are two major problems with our government that are illustrated in this discussion.
Actually I think you explained your idea very well. Although I have not actually done any online gambling, I have heard that it can be difficult to get an account setup. This may be part of the reason. If a player commits fraud in a manner similar to what you outlined above I don't see how an offshore online casino would have any recourse.
The post-war spike in the graph you linked to is close to the pre-prohibition levels. The data could be interepreted in any number of ways. The depression ran from 1929 to the late 30's. By the time the amendment was repealed many people didn't have money to by alcohol. After that many young men, a demographic I would imagine is responsible for large amounts of alcohol consumption, were out of the country - many of whom were killed in action. It doesn't appear that consumption increased again until the baby boomer generation started to grow up in the late 60's/early 70's.
Also looked at the article you linked to and didn't see much support for ongoing effects of prohibition on consumption. Unless you have a more substantial analysis of this data to link to I'm going to have a difficult time believing your statement that Prohibition reduced the long term per capita consumption of alcohol.
What's really frightinging is that this audit was done by a congressional committee, who, by our post is inherently incompetent. The incompetent oversight committee actually found security holes, how glaring did the incompetence of DHS have to be???
Unbelievable. I was reading your post - when I geto to "Scarecrow and Mrs. King" I had to bring the article up to see if you were joking or not.
F-Troop? Eight is Enough? Chico and the Man? Where do I sign up????
I actually heard the guy interviewed on a podcast and bought the book for my sister. Didn't get to read it all, but what I read was extremely funny.
I found the introduction where he explained how the robot uprising is inevitable quite amusing.