I'm simply saying that the management of the company, after seeing it turn into such a hotbed for crime(copyright theft), should be ashamed. If they feel guilty they should sell, or close. They obviously have low moral standards.
I'm not informed enough to say what should happen to them legally, but I know that if I were in their position I would prefer to have a small legitimate organisation than a profitable but morally questionable one.
Re:That proposed "stamp"
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
Virus creators will send spam through Outlook holes (the same ones as before probably), and it will get charged to whoever's account it is.
People will realise that a problem with a Microsoft product has cost them money and sue. They will realise they have no warranty with a MS product, so thay may as well be using a free one, which will not cost them more money.
The kazaa network, in my opinion is used for far more illegal purposes than legal, and that's why the company should be ashamed.
Those other things you list have completely valid legal purposes, and are used far more legally than illegally. (guns may be the exception, but that's for another day)
I do however think that companies who make products which can be used illegally should at least make an atempt to prevent illegal use. Computer software can (relatively) easily be changed to make illegal use more difficult.
The thing is they wouldn't make any money if they did that. The real money is helping those bootleggers, and theives, who will pay a little money to gets lots of illegal software and music.
The point is, there needs to be a line drawn between legitimate business, and organised crime. Many P2P networks, in my opinion fall on the organised crime side of the line.
If they can put laptops on peoples desk, that means a less open architecture, and therefor more revenues later in the product cycle.
Everyone who has meetings will want one if it's as fast as a desktop simply for the fact it's a laptop. I've known directors who get a new laptop every year, but don't even move it, it's simply for looks.
If found not to be infringing copyrights, wouldn't SCO be in breech of contract as there is no IP being licensed.
Surely then each licensee could sue SCO for the cost of the license, so would not be out of pocket. I would have thought that the anti-extortion laws would be put to good use too.
EV1Servers could just be playing a risky game. It risks alienating Linux users to satisfy the IT managers which don't like risks.
Re:One virus, many names...
on
The Virus Squad
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They will see no benefit.
Say there are only 5 AV companies. That's 5 * 800 = 4000 names/variants per month. That's good scaremongering, and more likely to get them a sale by increasing the whole market. Gran doesn't know the two viruses on the news are the same?
Also it would probably take longer to agree on a name than dissect the virus, where the valuable minutes mean money. Companies will go to the fastest response time and spend their money there.
The benefit of a standard name is so small it won't be economically possible in the current marketplace.
I would like a mobile phone which is just a mobile phone, and maybe address book. No text, no games, no wap.
Maybe they will get the idea and make a basic device with add on (firmware?) products which can't break the core device by updating.
The alternative is security/safety updates for phones, microwaves etc, requiring more and more processing power and getting locked into an upgrade cycle, like people have been in with their PC's for decades.
Slashdot Mirror
Long term is relative... When there are browsers out there with support for 10 years, this still seems very short sighted.
one year is now long term?
I'm simply saying that the management of the company, after seeing it turn into such a hotbed for crime(copyright theft), should be ashamed. If they feel guilty they should sell, or close. They obviously have low moral standards. I'm not informed enough to say what should happen to them legally, but I know that if I were in their position I would prefer to have a small legitimate organisation than a profitable but morally questionable one.
A new BSOD?
Virus creators will send spam through Outlook holes (the same ones as before probably), and it will get charged to whoever's account it is.
People will realise that a problem with a Microsoft product has cost them money and sue. They will realise they have no warranty with a MS product, so thay may as well be using a free one, which will not cost them more money.
It's all about the TCO.
The kazaa network, in my opinion is used for far more illegal purposes than legal, and that's why the company should be ashamed.
Those other things you list have completely valid legal purposes, and are used far more legally than illegally. (guns may be the exception, but that's for another day)
I do however think that companies who make products which can be used illegally should at least make an atempt to prevent illegal use. Computer software can (relatively) easily be changed to make illegal use more difficult.
The thing is they wouldn't make any money if they did that. The real money is helping those bootleggers, and theives, who will pay a little money to gets lots of illegal software and music.
The point is, there needs to be a line drawn between legitimate business, and organised crime. Many P2P networks, in my opinion fall on the organised crime side of the line.
They should face the music. They are obviously making no atempt to curb illegal activities on their network. Shame on them.
If they can put laptops on peoples desk, that means a less open architecture, and therefor more revenues later in the product cycle.
Everyone who has meetings will want one if it's as fast as a desktop simply for the fact it's a laptop. I've known directors who get a new laptop every year, but don't even move it, it's simply for looks.
If found not to be infringing copyrights, wouldn't SCO be in breech of contract as there is no IP being licensed.
Surely then each licensee could sue SCO for the cost of the license, so would not be out of pocket.
I would have thought that the anti-extortion laws would be put to good use too.
EV1Servers could just be playing a risky game. It risks alienating Linux users to satisfy the IT managers which don't like risks.
They will see no benefit.
Say there are only 5 AV companies.
That's 5 * 800 = 4000 names/variants per month. That's good scaremongering, and more likely to get them a sale by increasing the whole market. Gran doesn't know the two viruses on the news are the same?
Also it would probably take longer to agree on a name than dissect the virus, where the valuable minutes mean money. Companies will go to the fastest response time and spend their money there.
The benefit of a standard name is so small it won't be economically possible in the current marketplace.
I still get 12 hours of play out of an old CD player(11 years old), from too AA batteries. I havent seen anything recently which managed this.
All the recent CD players I have seen last 4 hours but have 1 Meg buffers, 2x read speed, feature, feature etc.
I'm sticking with my old CD player, It works as I want and has the only features I need (long battery life).
I would like a mobile phone which is just a mobile phone, and maybe address book. No text, no games, no wap.
Maybe they will get the idea and make a basic device with add on (firmware?) products which can't break the core device by updating.
The alternative is security/safety updates for phones, microwaves etc, requiring more and more processing power and getting locked into an upgrade cycle, like people have been in with their PC's for decades.
Any specification where you have to pay a license fee cannot be a standard.
This is a product.