As a citizen, do you think I want to know what brand asphalt you're going to use to fill the potholes?
You've never been to Luxembourg in the seventies. They used a certain brand of asphalt which melted in the summer, and it doesn't even get that hot here... Result: lotsa potholes, bumpy roads and other shenanigans. It got to the point that you could feel when you crossed the border: once the car started shaking you knew you were back home...
So yes, the brand of asphalt may not be as irrelevant as you seem to think...
Judging by the number of "XYZ MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE" clauses found in all kinds of license agreements, including for commercial software, we can suppose that everybody will give their software a zero rating, including commercial vendors. As basically everybody would label their software as 0, this wouldn't even cause a publicity backlash. So we'd be back to square one...
If you do, then their lawyers examine your stuff and your records, and if something doesn't ken, you get fined. Since this whole process can get prohibitively expensive quickly, most companies will perform the audit and buy licenses to get compliant, which is the real reason behind the letters.
And in case you're wondering: the main source of cost of this process is not actually the cost of additional licenses that you might need to purchase. No, it's the indirect cost to your business caused by being deprived of your working tools (PCs) and records (data stored on those PCs), and by the disruption caused by the presence of outside "investigators" on your premises. Which means that even businesses which are ok as far as licenses are concerned have it in their best interest to comply, rather than to risk having their equipment seized, even if the seizure is only "temporary" and for "evaluation of the evidence". Remember Steve Jackson games? They eventually got their equipment back... but so late as to make it virtually worthless.
And it is this threat of indirect costs that makes the thing look suspiciously like extortion.
The only one I can think of is Microsoft. This wouldn't be their undoing, it'd only make them stronger.
So, it is actually in their best interest to do shitty software, in order to prompt lawmakers for such a change in law. Once the law is passed, they clean up their act, and watch with glee as OSS developers get sued into oblivion by liability lawyers...
Such law should have a provision that it only applies to commercial software (i.e. software that is sold for a price, or on the base of signed license contracts). Free (as in speech) software should be excluded from such liability. Free (as in beer) software would still be covered, by considering it as promotional material to sell commercial software (i.e. give away Internet Explorter to sell Windows).
How would that impact non-US open source developers?
And what impact does it have for software developped before that change in law?
What about old (obsolete) versions? Certainly, you can't be liable for sth you developped before the rules were changed, can you?
(IMO doesn?t looks better than doest... at least the former is easily readable.)
Well, at least the latter clues the reader in that sth weird might be going on, and may prompt him to look it up... Whereas a question mark or a black square just reminds him of some well-known quirks of MS Word;-)
Sorry, my fault. A view source, as well as a visit with different browsers (lynx, netscape) revealed that you did indeed use the correct "&#xyzt;" Unicode escapes. Seems I've been bitten by Konqueror's Bug 25856. Next time, I'll doublecheck before insinuating somebody is a Microsoftie;-)
Expecting one to use Microsoft Word files in email is more akin to expecting one to drive a specific brand of motor vehicle, and guess what ? the government does?t do that. You think it?s acceptable for certain government agencies to require communications in MSWord format? Would you therefore think it would be okay for the DOT to require you to buy a Ford next time you want to use their highways?
"?" ROTFL. I can just picture you, proudly sitting in your Ford landyacht, defending the right of Yugos to use the expressways! Next time, use Tools->Preferences->SmartQuotes->Off, or wherever else that setting is;-)
The old "turn on your laptop and prove it works" routine won't exactly be enough to prove that the computer doesn't contain explosive components anymore.
It never actually did. Just put the explosive into the (removable) CD-Rom drive, and by just booting the laptop, the attendant will be none the wiser. Or if he is persisting enough to also test the CD-Rom drive, just make a Laptop battery which is one half battery, and the other half explosive.
I have NEVER gotten a word virus from an email attachment...they are NOT hard for people to read because 95% of people use Windows...
Funny that you say that. Out of the mails with Word attachments that I received over the course last year, over 95% were indeed virii (mostly, Sircam). And that's only counting those received on my main address, not on various webmaster aliases. So I'd say that it's indeed prudent advice to be mistrusting of Word attachment, and to doublecheck with the sender if you receive any such item.
perhaps you have heard "majority rules"
It's a little bit hard to reply to this one, without triggering Godwin's law;-)
ou can name executable files whatever you want. (although you may fuck up your terminal when you try to read it using "more". Been there, done that.)
Uhmm, are you sure about that? Modern versions of more (and less) filter those binary characters out (and replace them with a printable representation, such as ^A), so it won't mess up your terminal. It's cat that does this.
But is that one compatible with Office for Windows. I was under the impression that there were a couple of interoperability issues between both versions.
Problem: this happened in the 1930's...
on
Monsanto and PCBs
·
· Score: 1
... and the perps are long retired or dead already. And even 1977 is already mightly long ago. Prosecution of the Nazis was a little bit easyer, as it started right after the war, rather than half a century later.
The difference is, the Australian government presides over a country where the firearms murder rate is a small fraction of what it is in the US.
And what about the non-firearms murder rate? Without taking that into account, it could just as well be that murderers are only chosing different tools to achieve the same goal...
If you getted mugged in the streets of New York, the mugger probably has a gun. If you get mugged in Paris, the mugger probably has a knife. Against unarmed victims, one is as efficient as the other.
It's also true that any tech support call to MS that turns out to be a bug and not user error, is free of charge. Basically you only pay if the problem is your fault.
Slashdot Mirror
You've never been to Luxembourg in the seventies. They used a certain brand of asphalt which melted in the summer, and it doesn't even get that hot here... Result: lotsa potholes, bumpy roads and other shenanigans. It got to the point that you could feel when you crossed the border: once the car started shaking you knew you were back home...
So yes, the brand of asphalt may not be as irrelevant as you seem to think...
Judging by the number of "XYZ MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE" clauses found in all kinds of license agreements, including for commercial software, we can suppose that everybody will give their software a zero rating, including commercial vendors. As basically everybody would label their software as 0, this wouldn't even cause a publicity backlash. So we'd be back to square one...
And in case you're wondering: the main source of cost of this process is not actually the cost of additional licenses that you might need to purchase. No, it's the indirect cost to your business caused by being deprived of your working tools (PCs) and records (data stored on those PCs), and by the disruption caused by the presence of outside "investigators" on your premises. Which means that even businesses which are ok as far as licenses are concerned have it in their best interest to comply, rather than to risk having their equipment seized, even if the seizure is only "temporary" and for "evaluation of the evidence". Remember Steve Jackson games? They eventually got their equipment back ... but so late as to make it virtually worthless.
And it is this threat of indirect costs that makes the thing look suspiciously like extortion.
True enough, but what about mirrors sites, over which you have no control?
Wrong. A company might well have 2137 legal copies of a software, plus 5 it has no license for (either intentionally or inadvertedly).
For the 2137 legal copies, it would be a customer.
For the 5 illegal ones, it would be a pirate.
So yes, somebody can be both your customer and a pirate.
So, it is actually in their best interest to do shitty software, in order to prompt lawmakers for such a change in law. Once the law is passed, they clean up their act, and watch with glee as OSS developers get sued into oblivion by liability lawyers...
Such law should have a provision that it only applies to commercial software (i.e. software that is sold for a price, or on the base of signed license contracts). Free (as in speech) software should be excluded from such liability. Free (as in beer) software would still be covered, by considering it as promotional material to sell commercial software (i.e. give away Internet Explorter to sell Windows).
And what impact does it have for software developped before that change in law? What about old (obsolete) versions? Certainly, you can't be liable for sth you developped before the rules were changed, can you?
Well, at least the latter clues the reader in that sth weird might be going on, and may prompt him to look it up... Whereas a question mark or a black square just reminds him of some well-known quirks of MS Word ;-)
Sorry, my fault. A view source, as well as a visit with different browsers (lynx, netscape) revealed that you did indeed use the correct "&#xyzt;" Unicode escapes. Seems I've been bitten by Konqueror's Bug 25856. Next time, I'll doublecheck before insinuating somebody is a Microsoftie ;-)
Yes, of course they would. The same way that they put explosives in shoes. "They" being of course the terrorists.
"?" ROTFL. I can just picture you, proudly sitting in your Ford landyacht, defending the right of Yugos to use the expressways! Next time, use Tools->Preferences->SmartQuotes->Off, or wherever else that setting is ;-)
It never actually did. Just put the explosive into the (removable) CD-Rom drive, and by just booting the laptop, the attendant will be none the wiser. Or if he is persisting enough to also test the CD-Rom drive, just make a Laptop battery which is one half battery, and the other half explosive.
Huh?
Funny that you say that. Out of the mails with Word attachments that I received over the course last year, over 95% were indeed virii (mostly, Sircam). And that's only counting those received on my main address, not on various webmaster aliases. So I'd say that it's indeed prudent advice to be mistrusting of Word attachment, and to doublecheck with the sender if you receive any such item.
perhaps you have heard "majority rules"
It's a little bit hard to reply to this one, without triggering Godwin's law ;-)
And if it isn't the same person who sent the document: piracy@microsoft.com ... (or alternatively, if you live in Germany: gravenreuth@gravenreuth.de )
Uhmm, are you sure about that? Modern versions of more (and less) filter those binary characters out (and replace them with a printable representation, such as ^A), so it won't mess up your terminal. It's cat that does this.
But is that one compatible with Office for Windows. I was under the impression that there were a couple of interoperability issues between both versions.
Nowadays, the Mac itself would be the lamp...
Except that it is public, whereas your killfile is only a matter between you and your Usenet or IRC software.
You can skip step 1 (...which would reveal what you'd attempt to do...) by just going to http://slashdot.org/~SomeUser/friends)
... and the perps are long retired or dead already. And even 1977 is already mightly long ago. Prosecution of the Nazis was a little bit easyer, as it started right after the war, rather than half a century later.
And what about the non-firearms murder rate? Without taking that into account, it could just as well be that murderers are only chosing different tools to achieve the same goal...
If you getted mugged in the streets of New York, the mugger probably has a gun. If you get mugged in Paris, the mugger probably has a knife. Against unarmed victims, one is as efficient as the other.
Huh? Here in Europe all (attended) gas stations are pump first.
Only the automatic ones are pay-first, for obvious reasons...
And who gets to decide whose fault it is?