Well, I'm not entirely sure what you're requestioning, so I'll point out the two possibilities.
Possibility is a decentralized lag bubble. Ie, every person communicates with every other player, but through some mechanism (be it natural or artificial) the rate of packets reaching each player is effected. If there is, for example, 30 updates/second, then a lag bubble for one user would mean that those outside the bubble would simply be still sending the 30 updates/second, but the actual update rate is only say 20 updates/second. So, such users would look like they're progressively moving slower. If this effect is artificial, then at wear out time you could either make updates crank up to 40 updates/second until the queue of past updates empties or make it unlimited/second, in which case you'd have a fast-forward effect limited to your CPU power. The most interesting part about this that such a system would require all users to not cheat, as the amount of processing power required is so substantial.
Now, the second option is closer to bullet time. In it, your client will actually effect its rate of output/input packets to the outside world for a time, then compensate for this with a short burst of hyperactivity (ie, greater than the average) updates. Again, the processing power of current still leaves it up to users to not cheat.
Of course, once you start using a centralized server, then you have to take into account the natural lag that exists relative to it rather than to a collection of users. But if you're really interested in an example of at least of some of these concepts in action, I would turn to Subspace/Continuum. Though there is some server oversight to prevent some types of cheating, being massively multiplayer means that lag correction and self-validation of activities is crucial. And then you too can enjoy the many apparent paradoxes because of the fact that in the end it's the server's world view that goes.
Plus, the solution "uninstall it until we fix it" is pretty decent when it comes to security.
That's not really a solution, though. It's more a workaround. A solution would be a fix to the actual problem so you could continue using Greasemonkey.
Think we'll ever hear "Uninstall IE until we fix it" anytime soon?:o)
No, instead you'll hear "Oh my, you should have waited 30 days or until MS decided to make an announcement (whichever is sooner) to talk about that exploit! Think of all the helpless people who are now screwed!" Of course, telling them right away and having them uninstall/disable a program until a fix is released would be the most secure thing. Security is the #1 priority, right MS? So, that means letting customers uninstall/disable things, right?
Of course, if MS told customers right away, they're right it'd probably increase the chances of their customers being exploited, since most would be unwilling to simply stop using products (imagine the cost figures for downtime due to exploits if they did). And of course them *not* disabling programs, even if the option was available, would still reflect badly when the companies start serving up hacked websites with defaming or otherwise questionable material.
Do note, I'm not saying the situation would reflect any better when a similar exploit is found in FOSS software. The truth is, companies should really do some cost/benefit analysis and realize how much MS is lying about their belief in security. It's all about the obscurity. And that won't save them forever (there will be(/have been?) minus day exploits that will eventually make MS look really bad. I just hope when that day comes FOSS will be ready to not look as bad; and I don't mean that in the "you can fix it yourself" sense which most PHBs probably won't ever understand.
The XBox is hardly what I would call "big" considering the kind of hardware in it (that is, relative to the size of my desktop)
Most consumers don't consider the kind of hardware in a game console. They want it to function reliably, run the sort of games they want to play, and not be too big/too small. To put it another way, if MS had decided to use a lead inner coating for the XBox, to reduce EM interference or whatever, would you merely shrug off the extra 20lbs or would you be at all moved to consider getting another console?
The only way the bottled water analogy isn't applicable is your dismissal of it. You were talking about "theft of value". In the world of copyright, theft would involve stealing the copyright from the owner. When one person makes a copy, authorized or not, to another and does it freely, no physical theft takes place. That, of course, does not mean copyright hasn't been possibly infringed.
So, the only other "theft" of value in this situation would be the loss of sales. The bottled water analogy was to point out that a copyrighted work is more or less an infinite lake, as it is refilled faster than it can be emptied--how that occurs, water cycle or distribution cycle, not really entering into the argument. Beyond pointing out that this was the competition that the GGP post was talking about, I further explained that this government enforced monopoly of treating IP like a limited resource doesn't have any backing argument--there's the "Tragedy of the Commons" for real property. So, even though copyright exists at the moment, there's even further backing beyond simple free market competition--something that exists for stolen goods as well--on why such a government monopoly shouldn't exist; copyrighted works aren't rival or excludable.
Well, a copy belongs to them after it's given/bought.
b) they did not pay for,
It could have been paid for. There's nothing stopping that in this scheme.
c) they do not have permission to possess,
I'd gather they've got permission from their friend to possess it. Otherwise, why would they make the copy and give it to them?
and d) required the consumption of resources by the other party.
Yes, well, seeing as that's thermodynamics, no real surprise there.
The problem with your arguments are that most apply just as equally to another competitor coming in and producing a product that's virtually identical to the original something, then giving it away. But, I think there's a better analogy available: bottled water.
Imagine a company that's bottling water and selling it to everyone. They've built up this big plant to form the bottles, screw on the lids, and pump water from a nearby lake which no one can own. You've got a friend who happens to live near the lake, and they give you an empty bottle to use to take your own bottle of water from the lake. The water doesn't belong to you, nor do you have permission to possess it. Your friend gave you the empty bottle for free (you didn't pay for it) and the bottle came out of something (required the consumption of resources by the other party). Even assuming the lake will refill quickly enough that it was never run out through your actions, your getting bottled water from the source means a loss of potential sales to the bottling company.
If the government grants a company a monopoly on the lake, knowing it will never run out, would you consider it fair? The classic argument for dividing up resources is to prevent overexploitation of a limited resource. Instead, copyright and patents were created so that new "lakes", as it were, would be formed. Yet obviously giving anyone a monopoly over any "lake" for any extended period of time makes them less likely to expand to creating new "lakes", instead resting on claims of perpetual ownership like such a "lake" is indeed limited in resource.
So, I question the validity of your argument. And I question any of these "permissions" that you feel are necessary to compete, for whatever reason, against a government made monopoly.
I think it worth noting that AMD is planning to embed DRM as well. And Linus has made it rather clear he's okay with DRM. Now, that doesn't mean MS, Intel, AMD, or Linus are interested in strangling rights away from the user (especially Linus has tried to make it clear that he think DRM used the right way would be a good idea, so one shouldn't simply dismiss technology that could be used in evil ways). But while certainly MS and Intel being quasi-monopolies over their domains does make one uneasy of the evil they can do, it is wise to look around and make sure that those we would consider friends (or at least, not competitors) aren't do the same thing.
So, please speak up a bit more that AMD is doing DRM too. DRM could be a very good thing. Or it could be a very bad thing. But the best way to help shape/be aware of what transpires is to be kept aware. So, in the future, please remember AMD as well.
Re:Walk before you can run
on
Longhorn Preview
·
· Score: 3, Funny
if it were up to me I'd concentrate more on building a GUI where you can change the monitor resolution to the resolution you want when you want it on arbitrary systems, without having to ever edit a file named "XF86Config".
Oh, we solved that already. It's called xorg.conf now.
But guess what? My parents and my grandma and my little sister don't want to write their own operating system or applications.
They don't? *shock*
They want to use them. And since linux is still lacking, they're willing to pay for others to deliver (more or less) what they want.
Well, that's not surprising. So, are they paying for Windows? Mac OS X? Custom OS #1?
Telling your customer "if you don't like it, do it yourself!" is a really bad way to handle business and a terrible way to build a user-base.
Customer? Oh, I thought we were talking about users.
This is precisely what linux's problem is. It's a bunch of primadonna developers developing things the way developers want to.
I didn't realize it was a problem that developers develop things the way they want. Well, news to me.
And developers tend to throw every reason at you for why you don't want what you're positive you want (of course, that's usually just bullshit; they just dont' want to put in the extra effort to do what people really want and would rather talk you into wanting what they want you to want).
Really? I could have swore that a good many developers would tell you quite clearly non-bullshit reasons why not that you don't want what you say you want but why they're not developing it. That's usually the reason of "I don't need it, so I'm not going to code it up".
The solution isn't telling end-users to become developers. The solution is [telling] developers to start developing for the average end-user that they claim to so desperately want to reach.
Which developers are these? Ones that work at RedHat?
I think the very start your comment is based on the false premise that most developers are interested in doing any sort of work to make Linux a mainstream OS. I mean, sure it'd be nice for that to happen. But most developers are only interested in "scratching an itch". To that end, they're not interested in having "customers".
Now, if users did start paying developers money, I'm certain a good many of the developers would be willing to code up what was desired. That's fundamentally what the various commercial distros are targetted at. For those who simply refuse to code up what you want, you can go to another commercial distro and offer money. And if the price they demand is too high or you don't like the terms (many would desire that if they pay for it, they're the only ones who get the changes), you can go to someone else. Either you'll find a developer out there in the wild who is willing and able to do it for the price you're willing to pay and the terms you request or you'll have to do the coding yourself.
Realize that if you want to be treated like a customer, you're going to have to start acting like one. "Customer"'s root is custom, as in one who wants a custom made good. Your whole rant seems to be about expecting most Linux/X/etc developers to be willing to do custom work for free for the good of gaining popularity, disregarding that it's a vocal minority who talks as if Linux is destined to be mainstream.
So, in short, Linux being mainstream because it has the merit to be usable by most would be great. But me and many other developers aren't in some sort of coordinated attack to take over the desktop market, willing to do any amount of free coding to accomplish that end. If you do want custom work, shop around. I'm sure that there's a lot of developers who would love to be fairly compensated for things that otherwise wouldn't interest them.
Precedent or no, this guy no more deserves our sympathy or support than some guy selling bootlegged CDs on a street corner.
If you steal an audio CD from a record store and were punished for that and carrying a bible, would you not be at all upset that someone could be punished for carrying a bible? As bad as stealing is, the UK system works based on precedent. That means the next time someone uses a mod chip for otherwise legal activity, there's even a stronger case for why they should be punished: the original precedent plus a previous conviction that no one attempted to overturn.
If Jack the Ripper was caught upon attempting to kill his nth victim, I wouldn't want to see him also charged with loitering. Yes, people need to be punished for the bad things they do. That doesn't mean we should blindly support any charge against such a person because '[they] no more deserve our sympathy or support than some guy selling bootlegged CDs on a street corner". This is why groups like the ACLU take up even the controversal cases (okay, they do it more *because* they're controversal cases). Isn't this what makes up moral character?
Take your town with you. And be able to watch a firework show even without a internet connection (you'll need your GC, though). Remember, the firework show is from 7pm-9pm at the pond! Have fun, fellow Animal Crossing-ers.
The only reason these can be sold at a 1.00 USD price point is because the movies in question are public domain.
Yes. God knows that it's the copyright that's why CDs and DVDs are more expensive. I mean, look at a Windows XP CD vs a Linux DVD off cheapbytes. And don't forget those shareware/freeware CDs of old. Hmm..what were you saying again?
I was walking past through the hair cream aisle as I headed towards the back for my perscription. Out popped a man, those new-fangled holograms, screaming out about the joys he's experienced with his usage of herbal viagra. I walked through the hologram, trying my best to avoid the stares by the other customers. Only a few feet more, I thought.
When I approached the counter, I quietly asked for the condoms. The man reached under the counter and placed the condoms on top. Out popped a woman, this time, who looked barely 18. She kept talking about how she loved large, hard cock, and wouldn't I want a penis enlargement since she so badly needed a larger penis than my average size. Well, at least she was targeted better than the other ads. Thankfully after putting the condoms in the plastic bag the pop-up went away. I only wondered why the pharmacist hadn't done that from the beginning.
one county was raising the fine for littering from $1,000 to $10,000! It may seem ludicrous, but I bet you one thing -- Mr Trucker is going to think twice about throwing that cigarette butt out the window. Same holds true for Piracy... make the penalties so severe that nobody in their right mind will want to partake.
You know, that's exactly the right idea. Just like how the death penalty makes people think twice about murdering. In fact, if there was the death penalty for littering, I think people would think thrice. Why, we could make all laws (including the civil ones) end in death penalty. I mean, sure it's ludicrous. But not only do we get rid of all the criminals who dare step out of line, we also simplify the legal code and instill that sort of fear necessary to insure only the insane will ever be put to death--I mean, it'd be insanity to jaywalk if you knew the penalty was death.
Yep, that'd be a great legal system. Iran and Saudi Arabia are two countries which, AFAIK, are closest to this ideal. But they still have a lot of rules that don't involve execution. Well, here's hoping Sweden (and the US) moves towards the great and practical ideals that Iran is closer towards.
I would second this. As a developer, I really don't care if my software is commercially used. I mean, fundamentally, my software is there to be used. But, the second my software is distributed, modified, repackaged, or sold as just a binary, it just feels rather crappy to know that I'm missing out on all the modifications to a tool that I created. Ie, having to play catch up on features I want by extending my software in the ways others already have really sort of makes the whole "give out the source" idea seem rather pointless.
Now if the GPL didn't exist, I'd probably be release software under a BSD license. I like open source/free software also because I sometimes make modifications myself to code of someone else. And I'm quite happy to give back changes I made (partly because then I don't have to repatch if a new version comes out). In the end, I'm most interested in have the most useful software I can get. And the GPL seems to at least provide a mechanism by which that can occur without many disadvantages.
What makes you think that them cloning the client would do anything more than make Sony send another C&D and actually start suing? In the end, that's the only reason Winter's Roar alone has to not tell Sony to "climb a rope". I very much doubt it has anything to do with a worry that Sony will start making their clients incompatible with the WR server.
Now, if WR made a client and server pair that was incompatible with EQ and "enough" different (I'd take Blizzard's C&D against FreeCraft as a possible standard on what's too close)--ie, didn't compete directly with EQ's business model, then perhaps Sony would relent. But there's no legal basis Sony can claim for trying to force a monopoly over owning the only EQ network any more than Blizzard can over owning the only Battlenet network. Personally, I hope WR steps up and gets the support to legally tell Sony to "climb a rope".
The problem is you don't understand that some of us when we talk about parental responsability and parental sheltering is that there needs to be a balance between the two. Just like--poor analogy--people are constantly complaining that it's too hot or too cold. There's a constant push for an optimal mix of the two so that children turn out okay.
The truth is, there is no magic formula. Not only is every child different, so is every environment. But clearly neither extreme is healthy for a child, and most children realize this. Some parents are overprotective and unwilling to recognize that their child has any sexual knowledge--admittedly, being sheltered has that effect on a person--even when they're 15. Some other parents give their child wild latitude to do virtually whatever they please and try to blame everything their child does on society--admittedly, leaving society to raise one's child has that effect.
So, the fact that people, like me, would raise our voice to criticize either of these extremes is because of the general empathy* we have for the situation of children that might have been in some part like ourselves. Yes, there's certainly a bit of jealously involved in considering what these children are able to do because of their environment, but that doesn't mean we can't try to put that aside to make rational arguments upon why such extremes are bad.
*Obviously not having lived in their shoes, our feelings and thoughts on what really goes on will be far from accurate. But if we were all required to live in ever bad situation to make judgement, we'd be dead before we were able to speak up. As faulty as it is, we can try to inform ourselves as much as possible to try to come to a position. And lacking our own personal experience, we can try to speak to those who have experienced it themselves for guidance on what they think is right and wrong.
Bumper Sticker: Public airwaves: now as public as public use is in eminent domain
For the government or coprorations to simply abandon 12% of the populace, who are 100%(?) of the viewing public, does not substantiate the claim that NBC, CBS, etc are using public airwaves for the public. Simply put, when analog TV goes dead NBC, CBS, etc should lose their license to broadcast.
When tech companies specifically break code because it's a competitor, just like Microsoft with IE only pages, it goes to show they can't compete, so they have to resort to intentionally breaking things
That's not true, unfortunately. If it were, I'm sure there'd be a lot more people nodding their heads than are. The truth is, Microsoft products (and Intel products) can actually compete against their competitors. The truth is, the analogy is more like the scared track star who goes to the state finals and rigs the race to win. It's no longer a question of if the track star could have won without cheating; it's the point that the track star cheated and how their actions show that there's something fundamentally wrong with their character to be unwilling to compete fairly.
So, the real focus should be the pure moral outrage. Because as silly as it is to be upset that some no name track star cheated in a race that doesn't really matter, it couldn't be any sillier to be upset and revoke support over a company who went out of their way to cheat or deceive you over some product they're trying to sell you. If people don't demand--with their wallets--that companies "do no evil", then it's little surprise that the world becomes full of evil companies.
Now, how do you guarantee quality when the network is controlled by a closed boardroom at one corporation?
Don't pay money into the network. If it's true that it requires 40%+ penetration to run such a network with a profit, simply get 60%+ of people to boycott the company. Eventually (say, 1-4 years) another company will move in. Now, whether that new company is better is questionable.
So, you might say that getting 60%+ of people to vote with their wallet is too difficult. But, then look at the incumbency rate in local areas and you'll note that the same can be said for offices. The fact is, unless the company/politician already in power is arrogant against the residents or is blatantly corrupt/overly costly, most people will just shrug their shoulders and keep pushing the status quo. Of course, getting 51% of people to vote one way on one day (with usually months of pre-rallying) is a lot easier than months or years of 60%+ of people giving up something. But the cost is that everyone has to pay for the service.
The seemingly best answer would be a compromise, like a municipal non-profit trust. The municipality would own the lines but let the trust lease out the lines at sufficient cost to maintain them, based on bandwidth usage. Then, companies could compete against one another based on service and value. And if the trust starts acting inappropriately, there could be a special vote where 66%+ of voters (minimal 66% of eligible voters must attend; and of course punishment to be laid out for any attempt to restrict voting) decide to transfer control to another non-profit trust to do the job. Of course, this means basically a new trust forming and basically "running for office" to be the new trust head.
Best of all, only customers have to pay for any of this (well, they have to pay for the voting and the cost of regulating the trust--ie, making sure they remain open to inspection to keep the voters informed).
Application developers need to rely 100% on certain components being available to them on all client platforms.
Not really. The need to rely on a standard that allows certain components, theirs or others, or any equivalent component to exist. Simply writing towards only one component system is hanging one's own noose.
Perhaps some of the higher level components could go, but a developers job is much easier when they know that EVERY user is going to be able to view XYZ object inside their application without having to write their own components that might conflict with something else.
Except the fact is that you can never be sure that a higher level component exists on a system. You have to make checks to verify that a component/component system exists; this might be as simple as checking the version of Windows or (correctly) checking for all the components you need--think of all the browsers that refuse to display in browser X instead of verifying browser X can do all you need. To that end, if components aren't available, including the cheapest functional component from someone, be it the OS maker, one of their competitors, or yourself, is the proper course of action. This is, in fact, one of the larger complaints about Linux distros which don't include all required components in every package but instead rely on the packaging system to deal with it--statically compiled proprietary binaries are the way to go for Linux, though.
Internet explorer is critical amongst these as it is the foundation of the MS help system.
That was MS's doing.
Media player is critical as consumers expect at least a basic capability to view media locally and online "out-of-the-box."
True, and that in itself is not unreasonable.
The problem is the fear of what WMP will become. MS needlessly joined Internet Explorer with the Windows help system. There's nothing about their help system that I can think of HTML wouldn't be able to do short of popping up a system dialog box. Seeing how the whole Local Zone/Internet Zone security worked out, it seems like dumb luck that a separate protocol was created which wouldn't work online.
As for WMP, currently WMP is starting to include its own proprietary streaming protocol. Further, they've included DRM technology to lock down playing of video/audio. Both of these aren't yet a big deal because thankfully people haven't become dependent on these technologies.
I say this last part because not everyone uses Windows. The whole "designed for IE" really opens up the point that Microsoft has been pushing for reliance on Windows. This isn't illegal or really even amoral because in the real world, eventually people become sick of it and move on to competitors. But when the competitors are unable to properly integrate as substitutes for each of these badly design components--some the fault of outside competitors and most the "fault" of Microsoft--it's even harder to get people to switch away from a lot of good applications for a few bad ones.
So, while your comments about these two components being critical is true, the fact is that it's been very much selective integration to try to make these programs critical in a way that makes it very difficult to nearly impossible (say, going so far as being necessary to adopt MS's proprietary "standards" to maintain compliance and helping further solidify such as the standard) to compete against MS. Now, another monopoly or very large company would stand a chance as it would be able to do its own integration to lock out MS products. But barring that, without legal action it takes an informed consumer to change things. Sadly, there aren't many informed consumers willing to make some sacrifice to rectify the problem. That doesn't necessarily mean I think that government action is the answer or will solve anything.
I guess there's not much chance Congress would consider limiting eminent domain to the more 'traditional' uses like roads, schools, etc.
Uh, what? Are you actually serious? Read the 5th Amendment: "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation. " No where in it does it say "eminent domain". In fact, "eminent domain" is just an abbreviation of this definition. Now, roads, schools, etc are all owned by the public (indirectly, at least, through the government). But there's nothing about taking private land from one person (and paying them) and handing it to someone else that can qualify as "public use". Clearly the public isn't using it. The public can even be excluded from it--this is, btw, one reason why I don't see how it can be legal to kick a person off public school grounds.
Having said all that, Congress or a State Legislature writing a law to restate eminent domain yet again will end up being ignore just like the executive and judicial branches are already ignoring it. I'm sure it'll be a fun gesture, though. The fact is, this is just another example of the Constitution being blankly ignored. And before you state otherwise, I would point out that the Bill of Rights apply to everyone. A Bill of Rights that only applied to Federal cases would be for the most point pointless, as the Federal government only has jurisdiction in Washington, DC and interstate/international matters. Without a Bill of Rights over what the Federal government has power but with a Bill of Rights in every State people would end up protesting outside Washington, DC and using their 2nd Amendment right if the Federal government tried to step out of line. Besides, the Constiution guarantees that all states are a Democratic Republic, so clearly, allowing a state in the US which violated rights which are clearly spelled out in the Bill of Rights would be a violation of the Constitution, which would nullify all the state's Federal protection.
It's not up to every guy who runs a bakery or a stationary store or whatever to come up with entirely new business models whenever they hit hard times, and nobody expects them to - yet for some reason, people do expect that when it comes to the web.
The web, if you hadn't noticed, started off being primarily a hobby. Later sites spawned based on ad revenue. Except for buying physical or virtual goods for products, users were and are used to get everything free. To that end, if ads as a revenue stream really are running out, then it's hardly surprising that searching for a new business model is the way to go.
The problem is that most people don't think it's readily, if at all, possible to get everyone to switch over to a for-pay system. Further, your analogy really falls on its face. The sort of "hard times" a bakery or stationary store would have to fall into to compare would be something like hyperinflation--the fact that the ad->money conversion has shifted so much is proof of how it's a pretty apt analogy.
In the circumstance of hyper-inflation, bakeries would likely revert to a barter system in a more stable medium. To that end, the end of ads very well might mean the reversion of the internet back into a hobby network (the barter system there is time and energy). But perhaps the internet can "move forward" to charging money. Or the internet might breed an entirely new form of revenue stream. In any case, there's a lot more reason to believe that the internet, if it's to survive in nearly at nearly the size it is now, must come up with an entirely new revenue stream. Bread has been made for thousands of years and no amount of economic hard times on baked is likely to end or shrink bakeries in the long run. But, once ad revenue starts drying up from the internet, it might be the case that most of the internet will dry up along with it.
You know it'd be nice if you read my whole post. Guns are frightening. So are knives, cars, and a lot of other tools that could quite easily do a lot of harm to oneself or others. There's a lot of power in such tools. Fear is a natural reaction to that. It's by overcoming this fear that one can gain respect for using such a tool properly. Gun nuts are, in some ways, also frightening just like some hackers are. They seem to lack the respect for what damage could actually happen. Of course, some gun nuts/hackers respect the tools and simply enjoy using them. Obviously grouping as such is less than informative.
PS - I'm quasi-libertarian. You might notice my sig? I wouldn't begin to suggest taking away one's right to carry a gun. Talking through, on one's own individual time, what's an appropriate number/type is another issue. And no offense, but I don't think I want to be protected from a nutjob AC from/. when I'm better off owning a gun and training myself.
Just because you park your car in a mall and only protect it with a piece of glass that's easily broken and an alarm that everyone will ignore doesn't make it your fault if someone breaks in and steals your car.
True. It's not your fault that your car is stolen in such a circumstance.
It seems like a lot of folks, though, would blame GM for not making steel shields for your windows.
That's not exactly a good analogy. A better one would be if GM made a car that if you tapped on the door the right way (not enough to physically break anything), the door would unlock and the car would turn on. That would be seen as clearly a design defect.
Further, if GM had the means to make transparent steel-strength windows which through a password could shatter (for emergencies) at a cost marginally above current glass windows, many people would be very upset if GM wouldn't offer it to consumers. This is especially the case if say a plane maker was routinely using the stuff such that customers realized how cheap the material was.
Taken to the extreme, even if a person were to leave their doors open, their car on, and piles of cash in the car, the person wouldn't be responsible for the theft. But most people would consider that person foolish to believe it wouldn't be stolen. It's basically this sentiment of foolishness, not blame, that's passed around a lot. Oh, and there is lots of blame for defective software and moaning over lackluster software.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm not entirely sure what you're requestioning, so I'll point out the two possibilities.
Possibility is a decentralized lag bubble. Ie, every person communicates with every other player, but through some mechanism (be it natural or artificial) the rate of packets reaching each player is effected. If there is, for example, 30 updates/second, then a lag bubble for one user would mean that those outside the bubble would simply be still sending the 30 updates/second, but the actual update rate is only say 20 updates/second. So, such users would look like they're progressively moving slower. If this effect is artificial, then at wear out time you could either make updates crank up to 40 updates/second until the queue of past updates empties or make it unlimited/second, in which case you'd have a fast-forward effect limited to your CPU power. The most interesting part about this that such a system would require all users to not cheat, as the amount of processing power required is so substantial.
Now, the second option is closer to bullet time. In it, your client will actually effect its rate of output/input packets to the outside world for a time, then compensate for this with a short burst of hyperactivity (ie, greater than the average) updates. Again, the processing power of current still leaves it up to users to not cheat.
Of course, once you start using a centralized server, then you have to take into account the natural lag that exists relative to it rather than to a collection of users. But if you're really interested in an example of at least of some of these concepts in action, I would turn to Subspace/Continuum. Though there is some server oversight to prevent some types of cheating, being massively multiplayer means that lag correction and self-validation of activities is crucial. And then you too can enjoy the many apparent paradoxes because of the fact that in the end it's the server's world view that goes.
Plus, the solution "uninstall it until we fix it" is pretty decent when it comes to security.
:o)
That's not really a solution, though. It's more a workaround. A solution would be a fix to the actual problem so you could continue using Greasemonkey.
Think we'll ever hear "Uninstall IE until we fix it" anytime soon?
No, instead you'll hear "Oh my, you should have waited 30 days or until MS decided to make an announcement (whichever is sooner) to talk about that exploit! Think of all the helpless people who are now screwed!" Of course, telling them right away and having them uninstall/disable a program until a fix is released would be the most secure thing. Security is the #1 priority, right MS? So, that means letting customers uninstall/disable things, right?
Of course, if MS told customers right away, they're right it'd probably increase the chances of their customers being exploited, since most would be unwilling to simply stop using products (imagine the cost figures for downtime due to exploits if they did). And of course them *not* disabling programs, even if the option was available, would still reflect badly when the companies start serving up hacked websites with defaming or otherwise questionable material.
Do note, I'm not saying the situation would reflect any better when a similar exploit is found in FOSS software. The truth is, companies should really do some cost/benefit analysis and realize how much MS is lying about their belief in security. It's all about the obscurity. And that won't save them forever (there will be(/have been?) minus day exploits that will eventually make MS look really bad. I just hope when that day comes FOSS will be ready to not look as bad; and I don't mean that in the "you can fix it yourself" sense which most PHBs probably won't ever understand.
The XBox is hardly what I would call "big" considering the kind of hardware in it (that is, relative to the size of my desktop)
Most consumers don't consider the kind of hardware in a game console. They want it to function reliably, run the sort of games they want to play, and not be too big/too small. To put it another way, if MS had decided to use a lead inner coating for the XBox, to reduce EM interference or whatever, would you merely shrug off the extra 20lbs or would you be at all moved to consider getting another console?
The only way the bottled water analogy isn't applicable is your dismissal of it. You were talking about "theft of value". In the world of copyright, theft would involve stealing the copyright from the owner. When one person makes a copy, authorized or not, to another and does it freely, no physical theft takes place. That, of course, does not mean copyright hasn't been possibly infringed.
So, the only other "theft" of value in this situation would be the loss of sales. The bottled water analogy was to point out that a copyrighted work is more or less an infinite lake, as it is refilled faster than it can be emptied--how that occurs, water cycle or distribution cycle, not really entering into the argument. Beyond pointing out that this was the competition that the GGP post was talking about, I further explained that this government enforced monopoly of treating IP like a limited resource doesn't have any backing argument--there's the "Tragedy of the Commons" for real property. So, even though copyright exists at the moment, there's even further backing beyond simple free market competition--something that exists for stolen goods as well--on why such a government monopoly shouldn't exist; copyrighted works aren't rival or excludable.
That "someone" is benefitting from something that
a) does not belong to them,
Well, a copy belongs to them after it's given/bought.
b) they did not pay for,
It could have been paid for. There's nothing stopping that in this scheme.
c) they do not have permission to possess,
I'd gather they've got permission from their friend to possess it. Otherwise, why would they make the copy and give it to them?
and d) required the consumption of resources by the other party.
Yes, well, seeing as that's thermodynamics, no real surprise there.
The problem with your arguments are that most apply just as equally to another competitor coming in and producing a product that's virtually identical to the original something, then giving it away. But, I think there's a better analogy available: bottled water.
Imagine a company that's bottling water and selling it to everyone. They've built up this big plant to form the bottles, screw on the lids, and pump water from a nearby lake which no one can own. You've got a friend who happens to live near the lake, and they give you an empty bottle to use to take your own bottle of water from the lake. The water doesn't belong to you, nor do you have permission to possess it. Your friend gave you the empty bottle for free (you didn't pay for it) and the bottle came out of something (required the consumption of resources by the other party). Even assuming the lake will refill quickly enough that it was never run out through your actions, your getting bottled water from the source means a loss of potential sales to the bottling company.
If the government grants a company a monopoly on the lake, knowing it will never run out, would you consider it fair? The classic argument for dividing up resources is to prevent overexploitation of a limited resource. Instead, copyright and patents were created so that new "lakes", as it were, would be formed. Yet obviously giving anyone a monopoly over any "lake" for any extended period of time makes them less likely to expand to creating new "lakes", instead resting on claims of perpetual ownership like such a "lake" is indeed limited in resource.
So, I question the validity of your argument. And I question any of these "permissions" that you feel are necessary to compete, for whatever reason, against a government made monopoly.
I think it worth noting that AMD is planning to embed DRM as well. And Linus has made it rather clear he's okay with DRM. Now, that doesn't mean MS, Intel, AMD, or Linus are interested in strangling rights away from the user (especially Linus has tried to make it clear that he think DRM used the right way would be a good idea, so one shouldn't simply dismiss technology that could be used in evil ways). But while certainly MS and Intel being quasi-monopolies over their domains does make one uneasy of the evil they can do, it is wise to look around and make sure that those we would consider friends (or at least, not competitors) aren't do the same thing.
So, please speak up a bit more that AMD is doing DRM too. DRM could be a very good thing. Or it could be a very bad thing. But the best way to help shape/be aware of what transpires is to be kept aware. So, in the future, please remember AMD as well.
if it were up to me I'd concentrate more on building a GUI where you can change the monitor resolution to the resolution you want when you want it on arbitrary systems, without having to ever edit a file named "XF86Config".
Oh, we solved that already. It's called xorg.conf now.
But guess what? My parents and my grandma and my little sister don't want to write their own operating system or applications.
They don't? *shock*
They want to use them. And since linux is still lacking, they're willing to pay for others to deliver (more or less) what they want.
Well, that's not surprising. So, are they paying for Windows? Mac OS X? Custom OS #1?
Telling your customer "if you don't like it, do it yourself!" is a really bad way to handle business and a terrible way to build a user-base.
Customer? Oh, I thought we were talking about users.
This is precisely what linux's problem is. It's a bunch of primadonna developers developing things the way developers want to.
I didn't realize it was a problem that developers develop things the way they want. Well, news to me.
And developers tend to throw every reason at you for why you don't want what you're positive you want (of course, that's usually just bullshit; they just dont' want to put in the extra effort to do what people really want and would rather talk you into wanting what they want you to want).
Really? I could have swore that a good many developers would tell you quite clearly non-bullshit reasons why not that you don't want what you say you want but why they're not developing it. That's usually the reason of "I don't need it, so I'm not going to code it up".
The solution isn't telling end-users to become developers. The solution is [telling] developers to start developing for the average end-user that they claim to so desperately want to reach.
Which developers are these? Ones that work at RedHat?
I think the very start your comment is based on the false premise that most developers are interested in doing any sort of work to make Linux a mainstream OS. I mean, sure it'd be nice for that to happen. But most developers are only interested in "scratching an itch". To that end, they're not interested in having "customers".
Now, if users did start paying developers money, I'm certain a good many of the developers would be willing to code up what was desired. That's fundamentally what the various commercial distros are targetted at. For those who simply refuse to code up what you want, you can go to another commercial distro and offer money. And if the price they demand is too high or you don't like the terms (many would desire that if they pay for it, they're the only ones who get the changes), you can go to someone else. Either you'll find a developer out there in the wild who is willing and able to do it for the price you're willing to pay and the terms you request or you'll have to do the coding yourself.
Realize that if you want to be treated like a customer, you're going to have to start acting like one. "Customer"'s root is custom, as in one who wants a custom made good. Your whole rant seems to be about expecting most Linux/X/etc developers to be willing to do custom work for free for the good of gaining popularity, disregarding that it's a vocal minority who talks as if Linux is destined to be mainstream.
So, in short, Linux being mainstream because it has the merit to be usable by most would be great. But me and many other developers aren't in some sort of coordinated attack to take over the desktop market, willing to do any amount of free coding to accomplish that end. If you do want custom work, shop around. I'm sure that there's a lot of developers who would love to be fairly compensated for things that otherwise wouldn't interest them.
Precedent or no, this guy no more deserves our sympathy or support than some guy selling bootlegged CDs on a street corner.
If you steal an audio CD from a record store and were punished for that and carrying a bible, would you not be at all upset that someone could be punished for carrying a bible? As bad as stealing is, the UK system works based on precedent. That means the next time someone uses a mod chip for otherwise legal activity, there's even a stronger case for why they should be punished: the original precedent plus a previous conviction that no one attempted to overturn.
If Jack the Ripper was caught upon attempting to kill his nth victim, I wouldn't want to see him also charged with loitering. Yes, people need to be punished for the bad things they do. That doesn't mean we should blindly support any charge against such a person because '[they] no more deserve our sympathy or support than some guy selling bootlegged CDs on a street corner". This is why groups like the ACLU take up even the controversal cases (okay, they do it more *because* they're controversal cases). Isn't this what makes up moral character?
Take your town with you. And be able to watch a firework show even without a internet connection (you'll need your GC, though). Remember, the firework show is from 7pm-9pm at the pond! Have fun, fellow Animal Crossing-ers.
The free market is a principle of cheapness/efficiency. Being pointlessly expensive is a good thing?
The only reason these can be sold at a 1.00 USD price point is because the movies in question are public domain.
Yes. God knows that it's the copyright that's why CDs and DVDs are more expensive. I mean, look at a Windows XP CD vs a Linux DVD off cheapbytes. And don't forget those shareware/freeware CDs of old. Hmm..what were you saying again?
I was walking past through the hair cream aisle as I headed towards the back for my perscription. Out popped a man, those new-fangled holograms, screaming out about the joys he's experienced with his usage of herbal viagra. I walked through the hologram, trying my best to avoid the stares by the other customers. Only a few feet more, I thought.
When I approached the counter, I quietly asked for the condoms. The man reached under the counter and placed the condoms on top. Out popped a woman, this time, who looked barely 18. She kept talking about how she loved large, hard cock, and wouldn't I want a penis enlargement since she so badly needed a larger penis than my average size. Well, at least she was targeted better than the other ads. Thankfully after putting the condoms in the plastic bag the pop-up went away. I only wondered why the pharmacist hadn't done that from the beginning.
one county was raising the fine for littering from $1,000 to $10,000! It may seem ludicrous, but I bet you one thing -- Mr Trucker is going to think twice about throwing that cigarette butt out the window. Same holds true for Piracy... make the penalties so severe that nobody in their right mind will want to partake.
You know, that's exactly the right idea. Just like how the death penalty makes people think twice about murdering. In fact, if there was the death penalty for littering, I think people would think thrice. Why, we could make all laws (including the civil ones) end in death penalty. I mean, sure it's ludicrous. But not only do we get rid of all the criminals who dare step out of line, we also simplify the legal code and instill that sort of fear necessary to insure only the insane will ever be put to death--I mean, it'd be insanity to jaywalk if you knew the penalty was death.
Yep, that'd be a great legal system. Iran and Saudi Arabia are two countries which, AFAIK, are closest to this ideal. But they still have a lot of rules that don't involve execution. Well, here's hoping Sweden (and the US) moves towards the great and practical ideals that Iran is closer towards.
I would second this. As a developer, I really don't care if my software is commercially used. I mean, fundamentally, my software is there to be used. But, the second my software is distributed, modified, repackaged, or sold as just a binary, it just feels rather crappy to know that I'm missing out on all the modifications to a tool that I created. Ie, having to play catch up on features I want by extending my software in the ways others already have really sort of makes the whole "give out the source" idea seem rather pointless.
Now if the GPL didn't exist, I'd probably be release software under a BSD license. I like open source/free software also because I sometimes make modifications myself to code of someone else. And I'm quite happy to give back changes I made (partly because then I don't have to repatch if a new version comes out). In the end, I'm most interested in have the most useful software I can get. And the GPL seems to at least provide a mechanism by which that can occur without many disadvantages.
So, yay for user freedom because I'm a user too.
What makes you think that them cloning the client would do anything more than make Sony send another C&D and actually start suing? In the end, that's the only reason Winter's Roar alone has to not tell Sony to "climb a rope". I very much doubt it has anything to do with a worry that Sony will start making their clients incompatible with the WR server.
Now, if WR made a client and server pair that was incompatible with EQ and "enough" different (I'd take Blizzard's C&D against FreeCraft as a possible standard on what's too close)--ie, didn't compete directly with EQ's business model, then perhaps Sony would relent. But there's no legal basis Sony can claim for trying to force a monopoly over owning the only EQ network any more than Blizzard can over owning the only Battlenet network. Personally, I hope WR steps up and gets the support to legally tell Sony to "climb a rope".
The problem is you don't understand that some of us when we talk about parental responsability and parental sheltering is that there needs to be a balance between the two. Just like--poor analogy--people are constantly complaining that it's too hot or too cold. There's a constant push for an optimal mix of the two so that children turn out okay.
The truth is, there is no magic formula. Not only is every child different, so is every environment. But clearly neither extreme is healthy for a child, and most children realize this. Some parents are overprotective and unwilling to recognize that their child has any sexual knowledge--admittedly, being sheltered has that effect on a person--even when they're 15. Some other parents give their child wild latitude to do virtually whatever they please and try to blame everything their child does on society--admittedly, leaving society to raise one's child has that effect.
So, the fact that people, like me, would raise our voice to criticize either of these extremes is because of the general empathy* we have for the situation of children that might have been in some part like ourselves. Yes, there's certainly a bit of jealously involved in considering what these children are able to do because of their environment, but that doesn't mean we can't try to put that aside to make rational arguments upon why such extremes are bad.
*Obviously not having lived in their shoes, our feelings and thoughts on what really goes on will be far from accurate. But if we were all required to live in ever bad situation to make judgement, we'd be dead before we were able to speak up. As faulty as it is, we can try to inform ourselves as much as possible to try to come to a position. And lacking our own personal experience, we can try to speak to those who have experienced it themselves for guidance on what they think is right and wrong.
Bumper Sticker: Public airwaves: now as public as public use is in eminent domain
For the government or coprorations to simply abandon 12% of the populace, who are 100%(?) of the viewing public, does not substantiate the claim that NBC, CBS, etc are using public airwaves for the public. Simply put, when analog TV goes dead NBC, CBS, etc should lose their license to broadcast.
When tech companies specifically break code because it's a competitor, just like Microsoft with IE only pages, it goes to show they can't compete, so they have to resort to intentionally breaking things
That's not true, unfortunately. If it were, I'm sure there'd be a lot more people nodding their heads than are. The truth is, Microsoft products (and Intel products) can actually compete against their competitors. The truth is, the analogy is more like the scared track star who goes to the state finals and rigs the race to win. It's no longer a question of if the track star could have won without cheating; it's the point that the track star cheated and how their actions show that there's something fundamentally wrong with their character to be unwilling to compete fairly.
So, the real focus should be the pure moral outrage. Because as silly as it is to be upset that some no name track star cheated in a race that doesn't really matter, it couldn't be any sillier to be upset and revoke support over a company who went out of their way to cheat or deceive you over some product they're trying to sell you. If people don't demand--with their wallets--that companies "do no evil", then it's little surprise that the world becomes full of evil companies.
Now, how do you guarantee quality when the network is controlled by a closed boardroom at one corporation?
Don't pay money into the network. If it's true that it requires 40%+ penetration to run such a network with a profit, simply get 60%+ of people to boycott the company. Eventually (say, 1-4 years) another company will move in. Now, whether that new company is better is questionable.
So, you might say that getting 60%+ of people to vote with their wallet is too difficult. But, then look at the incumbency rate in local areas and you'll note that the same can be said for offices. The fact is, unless the company/politician already in power is arrogant against the residents or is blatantly corrupt/overly costly, most people will just shrug their shoulders and keep pushing the status quo. Of course, getting 51% of people to vote one way on one day (with usually months of pre-rallying) is a lot easier than months or years of 60%+ of people giving up something. But the cost is that everyone has to pay for the service.
The seemingly best answer would be a compromise, like a municipal non-profit trust. The municipality would own the lines but let the trust lease out the lines at sufficient cost to maintain them, based on bandwidth usage. Then, companies could compete against one another based on service and value. And if the trust starts acting inappropriately, there could be a special vote where 66%+ of voters (minimal 66% of eligible voters must attend; and of course punishment to be laid out for any attempt to restrict voting) decide to transfer control to another non-profit trust to do the job. Of course, this means basically a new trust forming and basically "running for office" to be the new trust head.
Best of all, only customers have to pay for any of this (well, they have to pay for the voting and the cost of regulating the trust--ie, making sure they remain open to inspection to keep the voters informed).
Application developers need to rely 100% on certain components being available to them on all client platforms.
Not really. The need to rely on a standard that allows certain components, theirs or others, or any equivalent component to exist. Simply writing towards only one component system is hanging one's own noose.
Perhaps some of the higher level components could go, but a developers job is much easier when they know that EVERY user is going to be able to view XYZ object inside their application without having to write their own components that might conflict with something else.
Except the fact is that you can never be sure that a higher level component exists on a system. You have to make checks to verify that a component/component system exists; this might be as simple as checking the version of Windows or (correctly) checking for all the components you need--think of all the browsers that refuse to display in browser X instead of verifying browser X can do all you need. To that end, if components aren't available, including the cheapest functional component from someone, be it the OS maker, one of their competitors, or yourself, is the proper course of action. This is, in fact, one of the larger complaints about Linux distros which don't include all required components in every package but instead rely on the packaging system to deal with it--statically compiled proprietary binaries are the way to go for Linux, though.
Internet explorer is critical amongst these as it is the foundation of the MS help system.
That was MS's doing.
Media player is critical as consumers expect at least a basic capability to view media locally and online "out-of-the-box."
True, and that in itself is not unreasonable.
The problem is the fear of what WMP will become. MS needlessly joined Internet Explorer with the Windows help system. There's nothing about their help system that I can think of HTML wouldn't be able to do short of popping up a system dialog box. Seeing how the whole Local Zone/Internet Zone security worked out, it seems like dumb luck that a separate protocol was created which wouldn't work online.
As for WMP, currently WMP is starting to include its own proprietary streaming protocol. Further, they've included DRM technology to lock down playing of video/audio. Both of these aren't yet a big deal because thankfully people haven't become dependent on these technologies.
I say this last part because not everyone uses Windows. The whole "designed for IE" really opens up the point that Microsoft has been pushing for reliance on Windows. This isn't illegal or really even amoral because in the real world, eventually people become sick of it and move on to competitors. But when the competitors are unable to properly integrate as substitutes for each of these badly design components--some the fault of outside competitors and most the "fault" of Microsoft--it's even harder to get people to switch away from a lot of good applications for a few bad ones.
So, while your comments about these two components being critical is true, the fact is that it's been very much selective integration to try to make these programs critical in a way that makes it very difficult to nearly impossible (say, going so far as being necessary to adopt MS's proprietary "standards" to maintain compliance and helping further solidify such as the standard) to compete against MS. Now, another monopoly or very large company would stand a chance as it would be able to do its own integration to lock out MS products. But barring that, without legal action it takes an informed consumer to change things. Sadly, there aren't many informed consumers willing to make some sacrifice to rectify the problem. That doesn't necessarily mean I think that government action is the answer or will solve anything.
I guess there's not much chance Congress would consider limiting eminent domain to the more 'traditional' uses like roads, schools, etc.
Uh, what? Are you actually serious? Read the 5th Amendment: "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation. " No where in it does it say "eminent domain". In fact, "eminent domain" is just an abbreviation of this definition. Now, roads, schools, etc are all owned by the public (indirectly, at least, through the government). But there's nothing about taking private land from one person (and paying them) and handing it to someone else that can qualify as "public use". Clearly the public isn't using it. The public can even be excluded from it--this is, btw, one reason why I don't see how it can be legal to kick a person off public school grounds.
Having said all that, Congress or a State Legislature writing a law to restate eminent domain yet again will end up being ignore just like the executive and judicial branches are already ignoring it. I'm sure it'll be a fun gesture, though. The fact is, this is just another example of the Constitution being blankly ignored. And before you state otherwise, I would point out that the Bill of Rights apply to everyone. A Bill of Rights that only applied to Federal cases would be for the most point pointless, as the Federal government only has jurisdiction in Washington, DC and interstate/international matters. Without a Bill of Rights over what the Federal government has power but with a Bill of Rights in every State people would end up protesting outside Washington, DC and using their 2nd Amendment right if the Federal government tried to step out of line. Besides, the Constiution guarantees that all states are a Democratic Republic, so clearly, allowing a state in the US which violated rights which are clearly spelled out in the Bill of Rights would be a violation of the Constitution, which would nullify all the state's Federal protection.
It's not up to every guy who runs a bakery or a stationary store or whatever to come up with entirely new business models whenever they hit hard times, and nobody expects them to - yet for some reason, people do expect that when it comes to the web.
The web, if you hadn't noticed, started off being primarily a hobby. Later sites spawned based on ad revenue. Except for buying physical or virtual goods for products, users were and are used to get everything free. To that end, if ads as a revenue stream really are running out, then it's hardly surprising that searching for a new business model is the way to go.
The problem is that most people don't think it's readily, if at all, possible to get everyone to switch over to a for-pay system. Further, your analogy really falls on its face. The sort of "hard times" a bakery or stationary store would have to fall into to compare would be something like hyperinflation--the fact that the ad->money conversion has shifted so much is proof of how it's a pretty apt analogy.
In the circumstance of hyper-inflation, bakeries would likely revert to a barter system in a more stable medium. To that end, the end of ads very well might mean the reversion of the internet back into a hobby network (the barter system there is time and energy). But perhaps the internet can "move forward" to charging money. Or the internet might breed an entirely new form of revenue stream. In any case, there's a lot more reason to believe that the internet, if it's to survive in nearly at nearly the size it is now, must come up with an entirely new revenue stream. Bread has been made for thousands of years and no amount of economic hard times on baked is likely to end or shrink bakeries in the long run. But, once ad revenue starts drying up from the internet, it might be the case that most of the internet will dry up along with it.
You know it'd be nice if you read my whole post. Guns are frightening. So are knives, cars, and a lot of other tools that could quite easily do a lot of harm to oneself or others. There's a lot of power in such tools. Fear is a natural reaction to that. It's by overcoming this fear that one can gain respect for using such a tool properly. Gun nuts are, in some ways, also frightening just like some hackers are. They seem to lack the respect for what damage could actually happen. Of course, some gun nuts/hackers respect the tools and simply enjoy using them. Obviously grouping as such is less than informative.
/. when I'm better off owning a gun and training myself.
PS - I'm quasi-libertarian. You might notice my sig? I wouldn't begin to suggest taking away one's right to carry a gun. Talking through, on one's own individual time, what's an appropriate number/type is another issue. And no offense, but I don't think I want to be protected from a nutjob AC from
Just because you park your car in a mall and only protect it with a piece of glass that's easily broken and an alarm that everyone will ignore doesn't make it your fault if someone breaks in and steals your car.
True. It's not your fault that your car is stolen in such a circumstance.
It seems like a lot of folks, though, would blame GM for not making steel shields for your windows.
That's not exactly a good analogy. A better one would be if GM made a car that if you tapped on the door the right way (not enough to physically break anything), the door would unlock and the car would turn on. That would be seen as clearly a design defect.
Further, if GM had the means to make transparent steel-strength windows which through a password could shatter (for emergencies) at a cost marginally above current glass windows, many people would be very upset if GM wouldn't offer it to consumers. This is especially the case if say a plane maker was routinely using the stuff such that customers realized how cheap the material was.
Taken to the extreme, even if a person were to leave their doors open, their car on, and piles of cash in the car, the person wouldn't be responsible for the theft. But most people would consider that person foolish to believe it wouldn't be stolen. It's basically this sentiment of foolishness, not blame, that's passed around a lot. Oh, and there is lots of blame for defective software and moaning over lackluster software.