So if you're car is totaled you might want to pull the box if you can. Mind you, they might have a few questions for you about where it went.
Well, while its still your property its still ok. Now, if they make it a condition of your insurance policy that you must also "sell" them the black box in order to recieve compensation (I'd wager they would) you have a point.
But....
I'm still having a hard time figuring out how the last 5 seconds of data is going to be of any use (ok, maybe actuarial data) to the insurance company above and beyond helping figure out the cause of the crash.
If these boxes become mandatory, and they will, you will not be allowed to withhold the evidence anymore than you can keep the police from examining the rest of your vehicle.
Legally, I have a hard time believing this, since the data on this is not "obvious" and "out in the open," in much the same way a cop can't go through your underware drawer even if he has a warrent to search your house for a stolen TV. Of course, IANAL and would like to actually hear someone with a legal background's thoughts.
IIf the device were reliable, that might be right. But you can't read the box yourself so you can never verify it, can you? In fact, you have no idea what the evil little thing is collecting or how accurate it is, do you? When you get a letter from your insurace company informing you that your risk category has been changed how will you be able to defend yourself? You can't, you will simply suck it up and pay.
Nor do I know *exactly* how most of the stuff I own works. All kinds of nasty stuff could be going on in my pinball machine (maybe Gottlieb is tracking my every multiball). Now, if something legal takes place that involves the black box then its accuracy is going to become central in a court case (remember Simpson and DNA). If its shown to be inaccurate then kiss it goodbye as evidence.
And just how is the insurance company going to raise my rates? Are they going to sneak into my garage each and every night and download the data? Uh, NO. The only way they see the blackbox is after an accident. But, since I'd just been in an accident they're already raising my rates, which is exactly the same thing to do right now. I would argue that it just may help keep your rates down (since there's more proof over who's at fault), but these are insureance companies afterall. That said, I still fail to see how this black box would change anything for the worse.
And how does this new black box change legal precedent that allows someone snoop on your property against your concent? Is the black box broadcasting to GM headquarters? Can I ping your blackbox from my internet connection? What rights would the police have to check your black box that is different than their right to arbitrarily read any private journal you keep?
Wrong. How would the black box be any different than keeping a journal? As I said before, the car is your property (just like the journal) and is protected via the same rights.
With the "Last 5 second" black box I don't see much of a threat to privacy. It isn't like they're tracking where you're going or keeping tabs of any driving habits, and its certainly not reporting anything back to anyone without actual physical contact. Since you own the car (and thus the black box) I would assume that if anyone did want to get ahold of it against your will they would have to get a court order.
Frankly I'd like to have one of these babies in my car. It would remove a lot of uncertainty around what caused an accident: ("As you can see Judge, I was indeed stopped and my brake lights were working when the idiot rear ended me")
mp3 is alredy the defacto standard for cd-ripping. Support for Ogg is just too late to matter to anyone except for geeks on this site.
Nope, software developers as well, esp. game developers. You have to pay scratch if your compressed audio is MP3 (good old Thompson Multimedia want their cut), so OGG actually does pretty well in that niche.
Do live365 use this codec? I simply ask because their tool for downsampling mp3 to around 56K works DAMN WELL. I tried sampling directly to the low bitrate with things like LAME, but I have yet to find anything that sounds as good at that low a rate.
Agreed. My point wasn't that the issue is inconsiquential to the end user, simply that they're not going to go after joe user with JPEGs on his machine (or, more likely programs that create or view JPEGs) to cough up moolah. They're going to go after the low hanging fruit, which at this early stage of the game are the large corperations who have products that use JPEG compression.
This will put a crimp on things, be it financial or access to technology.
*snort* what is the sound of millions of people flipping these guys off? Most people ignore the GIF compression threats - now we're supposed to fear for JPG suits?
Nope, they don't care about home user. They DO care about the very large companies that use JPEG compression in thier products, simply because if the patent holds up (I have no idea how valid or invalid it appears to be) those same very large companies will be in hock to the tune of a lot of $$$ to the patent holders.
But if they win, it could put a real squeeze on webcast-only stations.
Maybe not. The like of Live356 streams (of which I have a crappy one {plug plug plug}) would also be off the hook, since those streams are like "traditional" radio (i.e. I pick the setlist, not the listener).
Or at least that's how I've read it, which certainly doesn't mean its true.
I know people who will swear up and down that "Sgt. Pepper's" is way better in mono, but I refuse to believe that.
Same goes for Pet Sounds. There was a stereo release of Pet Sounds a few years ago. I still think the mono sounds much, much better (but that's probably because I heard it first and love it to death).
The same goes for any of Spector's Philles label work.
I see your point, and in a perfect world a good computer based learning system can help, but I still think that today, for 3rd world countries with heaps of problems, this is not the best use of money.
In many rural communities, especially in Africa (the situation in India, specifically, is different), people don't have access to education because of the distances involved in getting to facilities.
Studies have shown that computers CAN, if used correctly, address this problem, and be a substitute, not simply a tool, for traditional basic education. This is because a computer CAN be used to teach literacy, basic mathematics, etc, and most importantly CAN be located nearer to the target audience than traditional resources (such as teachers).
Unfortunatly, this is not "The Diamond Age." Yes, there is some fairly good educational software out there, but none of it is 1/100th as good as having personal interaction with a human. It is not going to replace a teacher. It may augment a teacher, but its not going to replace one.
Now, assuming that the computers were dirt cheap and it was hard to get a teacher (let alone a school) out to the hinterlands I'd say "what they hey, what harm could it do?" But cheap for us is at least half the yearly income for those who you're targeting. If your parents made $40K a year, would they buy you a $20K computer and expect it to be your sole source of learning? What if the gov't ponyed up the money? Four computers = $80K and you've more than paid for a teacher. I still think 1 teacher will do orders of magnitude better with 4 children than 4 computers, even state of the art ones, could.
Books are useless without literacy.
Agreed.
Even for the literate, educational books are of questionable value without a suitable guide.
Agreed. The problem is that a computer is not going to bootstrap you into being literate. You are not going to place an illiterate person in front of a computer and with no outside assistance have him or hear read after a certain amount of time. Learning fundamentals takes person to person interactions.
This is a basic flaw in using a non-interactive medium for education. Only once you have learned to educate yourself (which is supposed to be the basic skill you learn at a University) can you be reasonably expected to learn from books. (This isn't to say that people don't, but rather that not all people do).
And that's my point. A computer by itself is not going to take you from a blank slate to literate. It takes people to do that (parents, extended family, teachers, friends, etc). Someone would have to do the same groundwork to get to the level that a computer would help them learn as to get a book to help them to learn (and as an aside I think it happens at a much lower level than university). And again, lets look at the cost of everything. Once you've gained a basic literacy which is more cost effective? A computer that costs half your annual income (and this doesn't include any content to fill the computer) or books?
Regarding medical knowledge, I was referring to expert systems, not to medical texts. In a community where there is no doctor, an maybe only a nurse several kilometers away, an expert system can be a valuable aid.
As an adjunct to having a doctor I think this is a damn good idea. Expert systems can help a LOT and keep costs down. But you don't need a computer per person for this. One in each village used by someone with some medical training would work well.
Finally, having been taught by several crap teachers, I'll take a filmstrip any day. Educational broadcasts in developing nations are proving to have more success than formal education, because they reach a wider audience, and are presented in a clear and understandable fashion... completely unlike a lesson from a crap teacher.
Educational broadcasters are not the same as a filmstrip. Good educational programming takes a lot of time, effort, and creativity to make effective educational programming. Then of course you have to distribute it. It isn't cheap (but better than just giving kids computers I'll admit).
To beat a dead horse, it comes back down to $$$ (or rupees). If you are a cash strapped society what are your basic needs and how are you going to pay for them? The cost of outfitting children with computers is WAY too high for the return on investment. You are not going to take a 5 year old thru to 16 and teach him everything he's going to need to know with a computer (and only a computer). You buy *a lot* more literacy and education for your buck by funding teachers, schools, and books. It may not be the sexiest way of doing it, but it surely is the best value for money.
A broader base of accessible computers is a means to improve this situation.
Barely, if at all. Computers are not the end-all and be-all of education. There are more important things to spend money on in impoverished areas, like reading and writing. Focus on the basics first, where your money stretches a hell of a lot farther. You do not need a computer to learn to read, write, do math, etc. Computers are tools (and when it comes to education very specialized tools, not cure alls) and expensive ones at that. Shoving a computer in front a population doesn't make them any smarter.
It will allow literacy improvement at home for many children and adults.
So will books, and they're a hell of a lot cheaper.
It will also bring knowledge on how to avoid preventable diseases, primarily through basic nutrition and sanitation.
Again, so do books and *doctors*. Throwing a computer in front of the masses isn't going to all of the sudden transform them into nutritional experts.
Computers are fun (I own way too many of them), but they are simply tools, no more, no less. They are no cureall for education. As Cliff Stoll pointed out, the lowly filmstrip 60 years ago was givin same hype as computers now for their supposed "revolutionizing" of education. I'll take a crap teacher over a good filmstrip (if there is such a thing) any day.
I broadcast on live365 (a damn good service I must say) but even those poor buggers have gotten the shaft by CARP. Their solution has been to levy a $5 monthly fee across the entire live365 lineup. I must say I can't blame them, they're trying to spread the hurt around as evenly as possible, but it does mean that you can't run a CARP free feed thru them without handing money over to the RIAA.
I fear that this is what the RIAA wanted. Personally, I think CARP blows, but if the RIAA want to shoot themselves in the foot by all means they should be able to. But it looks like they'll be able to essentially shoot down any big time non-CARP radio feeds by simply being the 800lb gorilla in the music biz.
Who (in terms of a large, easy to use broadcaster like live365) are going to run the risk of not paying CARP fees for everything and run the risk of the RIAA coming down on them like a tonne of brinks is a CARP free stream broadcasts a CARP covered song by accident?
Imagine if the gov't could just take your property because of popular opinion.
"Well, Disney has asked us to take your property because they want to build a new theme park. Seems to be a pretty popular idea. Start packing, because the bulldozers are on the way."
What is needed are clear cut rules (laws) governing domain names (just like property) that are uniformly enforced, not this fruity "well you don't REALLY own your name and we play hard and fast with the rules" crap that ICANN pulls.
I always thought of it as claiming you couldn't take the car stereo out without the engine failing. Sure, you can design a car that way but its incredibly stupid. The only reason GM would do such a thing is to keep AIWA et al from being able to install a third party player.
The ironic part is, if they ditched the record companies and made a *real* effort to come up with an internet-based music distribution system with micropayments, they'd all probably make more money, AND get more direct control over their work...which is a much more 'real' power than the record companies' 'fame' they peddle.
As I said before they already HAVE direct control of their music. Their label is simply a marketing/distribution channel for them. They own their own sound recordings, their own voices, and quite possibly (I'm not sure about this) all of thier own publishing rights. They are one of the few bands (along with Springsteen, Melloncamp, REM that I can think of off the top of my head) who have full control over their music. Frankly, I'm constantly amazed at how quickly people are willing to sign away all of their rights to record companies in the first place.
Mettalica was in it for the prestige and decided to suck up to the record company who was promoting them and making them 'famous'.
No, Metallica was in it because, unlike 90%+ of the artists signed to the big five, they actually *own* their recording rights. Look at a Metallica CD. It doesn't say (C)(P) Electra (their lable).
Now, this is not to say I agree with Metallica's stance, but its understandable why theirs and Janis' view points are different.
Spielberg likes to intellectualize his movies somewhat too, which might be a good idea in itself, but wouldn't fit well into Star Wars.
Not always. I always thought the Indy films were good, old fashioned romps (with a little religion thrown in for good measure). He couldn't have done any worse than Lucas.
Can they leagally go after the people with legitamate MP3s who happen to make them available on the internet or those who illegally download them?
To better explain: if I leave my doors unlocked and someone steals my CDs I may be a moron for not locking my doors, but I certainly didn't commit a crime (the thief did).
Also, if User A has a Old97s CD and legit MP3 copies of the disc on his machine and I also own the same Old97s CD and download his copies (instead of burning my own) did either of us break a law?
Notice I said This is no arguement for proof of price fix
I didn't say that there was no price fixing. The fact that CDs are uniformly the same price (as compared to the book industry where there's a lot more variability) I think is good proof.
My only beef was the "CDs are cheaper to make, therefor it proves price fixing." That is fundamentally wrong. The price of production is only a small fraction of the cost of bringing an album to market.
Slashdot Mirror
So if you're car is totaled you might want to pull the box if you can. Mind you, they might have a few questions for you about where it went.
Well, while its still your property its still ok. Now, if they make it a condition of your insurance policy that you must also "sell" them the black box in order to recieve compensation (I'd wager they would) you have a point.
But....
I'm still having a hard time figuring out how the last 5 seconds of data is going to be of any use (ok, maybe actuarial data) to the insurance company above and beyond helping figure out the cause of the crash.
If these boxes become mandatory, and they will, you will not be allowed to withhold the evidence anymore than you can keep the police from examining the rest of your vehicle.
Legally, I have a hard time believing this, since the data on this is not "obvious" and "out in the open," in much the same way a cop can't go through your underware drawer even if he has a warrent to search your house for a stolen TV. Of course, IANAL and would like to actually hear someone with a legal background's thoughts.
IIf the device were reliable, that might be right. But you can't read the box yourself so you can never verify it, can you? In fact, you have no idea what the evil little thing is collecting or how accurate it is, do you? When you get a letter from your insurace company informing you that your risk category has been changed how will you be able to defend yourself? You can't, you will simply suck it up and pay.
Nor do I know *exactly* how most of the stuff I own works. All kinds of nasty stuff could be going on in my pinball machine (maybe Gottlieb is tracking my every multiball). Now, if something legal takes place that involves the black box then its accuracy is going to become central in a court case (remember Simpson and DNA). If its shown to be inaccurate then kiss it goodbye as evidence.
And just how is the insurance company going to raise my rates? Are they going to sneak into my garage each and every night and download the data? Uh, NO. The only way they see the blackbox is after an accident. But, since I'd just been in an accident they're already raising my rates, which is exactly the same thing to do right now. I would argue that it just may help keep your rates down (since there's more proof over who's at fault), but these are insureance companies afterall. That said, I still fail to see how this black box would change anything for the worse.
Where does the tough part come in?
And how does this new black box change legal precedent that allows someone snoop on your property against your concent? Is the black box broadcasting to GM headquarters? Can I ping your blackbox from my internet connection? What rights would the police have to check your black box that is different than their right to arbitrarily read any private journal you keep?
Wrong. How would the black box be any different than keeping a journal? As I said before, the car is your property (just like the journal) and is protected via the same rights.
With the "Last 5 second" black box I don't see much of a threat to privacy. It isn't like they're tracking where you're going or keeping tabs of any driving habits, and its certainly not reporting anything back to anyone without actual physical contact. Since you own the car (and thus the black box) I would assume that if anyone did want to get ahold of it against your will they would have to get a court order.
Frankly I'd like to have one of these babies in my car. It would remove a lot of uncertainty around what caused an accident: ("As you can see Judge, I was indeed stopped and my brake lights were working when the idiot rear ended me")
mp3 is alredy the defacto standard for cd-ripping. Support for Ogg is just too late to matter to anyone except for geeks on this site.
Nope, software developers as well, esp. game developers. You have to pay scratch if your compressed audio is MP3 (good old Thompson Multimedia want their cut), so OGG actually does pretty well in that niche.
... or, you could always double the heartrate and have granddad run around like the last sketch in a Benny Hill episode.
Who has a pacemaker with an IP address??? What a dorkus.
Do live365 use this codec? I simply ask because their tool for downsampling mp3 to around 56K works DAMN WELL. I tried sampling directly to the low bitrate with things like LAME, but I have yet to find anything that sounds as good at that low a rate.
Agreed. My point wasn't that the issue is inconsiquential to the end user, simply that they're not going to go after joe user with JPEGs on his machine (or, more likely programs that create or view JPEGs) to cough up moolah. They're going to go after the low hanging fruit, which at this early stage of the game are the large corperations who have products that use JPEG compression.
This will put a crimp on things, be it financial or access to technology.
*snort* what is the sound of millions of people flipping these guys off? Most people ignore the GIF compression threats - now we're supposed to fear for JPG suits?
Nope, they don't care about home user. They DO care about the very large companies that use JPEG compression in thier products, simply because if the patent holds up (I have no idea how valid or invalid it appears to be) those same very large companies will be in hock to the tune of a lot of $$$ to the patent holders.
But if they win, it could put a real squeeze on webcast-only stations.
Maybe not. The like of Live356 streams (of which I have a crappy one {plug plug plug}) would also be off the hook, since those streams are like "traditional" radio (i.e. I pick the setlist, not the listener).
Or at least that's how I've read it, which certainly doesn't mean its true.
I know people who will swear up and down that "Sgt. Pepper's" is way better in mono, but I refuse to believe that.
Same goes for Pet Sounds. There was a stereo release of Pet Sounds a few years ago. I still think the mono sounds much, much better (but that's probably because I heard it first and love it to death).
The same goes for any of Spector's Philles label work.
I see your point, and in a perfect world a good computer based learning system can help, but I still think that today, for 3rd world countries with heaps of problems, this is not the best use of money.
... completely unlike a lesson from a crap teacher.
In many rural communities, especially in Africa (the situation in India, specifically, is different), people don't have access to education because of the distances involved in getting to facilities.
Studies have shown that computers CAN, if used correctly, address this problem, and be a substitute, not simply a tool, for traditional basic education. This is because a computer CAN be used to teach literacy, basic mathematics, etc, and most importantly CAN be located nearer to the target audience than traditional resources (such as teachers).
Unfortunatly, this is not "The Diamond Age." Yes, there is some fairly good educational software out there, but none of it is 1/100th as good as having personal interaction with a human. It is not going to replace a teacher. It may augment a teacher, but its not going to replace one.
Now, assuming that the computers were dirt cheap and it was hard to get a teacher (let alone a school) out to the hinterlands I'd say "what they hey, what harm could it do?" But cheap for us is at least half the yearly income for those who you're targeting. If your parents made $40K a year, would they buy you a $20K computer and expect it to be your sole source of learning? What if the gov't ponyed up the money? Four computers = $80K and you've more than paid for a teacher. I still think 1 teacher will do orders of magnitude better with 4 children than 4 computers, even state of the art ones, could.
Books are useless without literacy.
Agreed.
Even for the literate, educational books are of questionable value without a suitable guide.
Agreed. The problem is that a computer is not going to bootstrap you into being literate. You are not going to place an illiterate person in front of a computer and with no outside assistance have him or hear read after a certain amount of time. Learning fundamentals takes person to person interactions.
This is a basic flaw in using a non-interactive medium for education. Only once you have learned to educate yourself (which is supposed to be the basic skill you learn at a University) can you be reasonably expected to learn from books. (This isn't to say that people don't, but rather that not all people do).
And that's my point. A computer by itself is not going to take you from a blank slate to literate. It takes people to do that (parents, extended family, teachers, friends, etc). Someone would have to do the same groundwork to get to the level that a computer would help them learn as to get a book to help them to learn (and as an aside I think it happens at a much lower level than university). And again, lets look at the cost of everything. Once you've gained a basic literacy which is more cost effective? A computer that costs half your annual income (and this doesn't include any content to fill the computer) or books?
Regarding medical knowledge, I was referring to expert systems, not to medical texts. In a community where there is no doctor, an maybe only a nurse several kilometers away, an expert system can be a valuable aid.
As an adjunct to having a doctor I think this is a damn good idea. Expert systems can help a LOT and keep costs down. But you don't need a computer per person for this. One in each village used by someone with some medical training would work well.
Finally, having been taught by several crap teachers, I'll take a filmstrip any day. Educational broadcasts in developing nations are proving to have more success than formal education, because they reach a wider audience, and are presented in a clear and understandable fashion
Educational broadcasters are not the same as a filmstrip. Good educational programming takes a lot of time, effort, and creativity to make effective educational programming. Then of course you have to distribute it. It isn't cheap (but better than just giving kids computers I'll admit).
To beat a dead horse, it comes back down to $$$ (or rupees). If you are a cash strapped society what are your basic needs and how are you going to pay for them? The cost of outfitting children with computers is WAY too high for the return on investment. You are not going to take a 5 year old thru to 16 and teach him everything he's going to need to know with a computer (and only a computer). You buy *a lot* more literacy and education for your buck by funding teachers, schools, and books. It may not be the sexiest way of doing it, but it surely is the best value for money.
A broader base of accessible computers is a means to improve this situation.
Barely, if at all. Computers are not the end-all and be-all of education. There are more important things to spend money on in impoverished areas, like reading and writing. Focus on the basics first, where your money stretches a hell of a lot farther. You do not need a computer to learn to read, write, do math, etc. Computers are tools (and when it comes to education very specialized tools, not cure alls) and expensive ones at that. Shoving a computer in front a population doesn't make them any smarter.
It will allow literacy improvement at home for many children and adults.
So will books, and they're a hell of a lot cheaper.
It will also bring knowledge on how to avoid preventable diseases, primarily through basic nutrition and sanitation.
Again, so do books and *doctors*. Throwing a computer in front of the masses isn't going to all of the sudden transform them into nutritional experts.
Computers are fun (I own way too many of them), but they are simply tools, no more, no less. They are no cureall for education. As Cliff Stoll pointed out, the lowly filmstrip 60 years ago was givin same hype as computers now for their supposed "revolutionizing" of education. I'll take a crap teacher over a good filmstrip (if there is such a thing) any day.
I broadcast on live365 (a damn good service I must say) but even those poor buggers have gotten the shaft by CARP. Their solution has been to levy a $5 monthly fee across the entire live365 lineup. I must say I can't blame them, they're trying to spread the hurt around as evenly as possible, but it does mean that you can't run a CARP free feed thru them without handing money over to the RIAA.
I fear that this is what the RIAA wanted. Personally, I think CARP blows, but if the RIAA want to shoot themselves in the foot by all means they should be able to. But it looks like they'll be able to essentially shoot down any big time non-CARP radio feeds by simply being the 800lb gorilla in the music biz.
Who (in terms of a large, easy to use broadcaster like live365) are going to run the risk of not paying CARP fees for everything and run the risk of the RIAA coming down on them like a tonne of brinks is a CARP free stream broadcasts a CARP covered song by accident?
Er, bad idea (in terms of property law).
Imagine if the gov't could just take your property because of popular opinion.
"Well, Disney has asked us to take your property because they want to build a new theme park. Seems to be a pretty popular idea. Start packing, because the bulldozers are on the way."
What is needed are clear cut rules (laws) governing domain names (just like property) that are uniformly enforced, not this fruity "well you don't REALLY own your name and we play hard and fast with the rules" crap that ICANN pulls.
I always thought of it as claiming you couldn't take the car stereo out without the engine failing. Sure, you can design a car that way but its incredibly stupid. The only reason GM would do such a thing is to keep AIWA et al from being able to install a third party player.
Whoops... hit 'Submit' too quickly:
The ironic part is, if they ditched the record companies and made a *real* effort to come up with an internet-based music distribution system with micropayments, they'd all probably make more money, AND get more direct control over their work...which is a much more 'real' power than the record companies' 'fame' they peddle.
As I said before they already HAVE direct control of their music. Their label is simply a marketing/distribution channel for them. They own their own sound recordings, their own voices, and quite possibly (I'm not sure about this) all of thier own publishing rights. They are one of the few bands (along with Springsteen, Melloncamp, REM that I can think of off the top of my head) who have full control over their music. Frankly, I'm constantly amazed at how quickly people are willing to sign away all of their rights to record companies in the first place.
Mettalica was in it for the prestige and decided to suck up to the record company who was promoting them and making them 'famous'.
No, Metallica was in it because, unlike 90%+ of the artists signed to the big five, they actually *own* their recording rights. Look at a Metallica CD. It doesn't say (C)(P) Electra (their lable).
Now, this is not to say I agree with Metallica's stance, but its understandable why theirs and Janis' view points are different.
Spielberg likes to intellectualize his movies somewhat too, which might be a good idea in itself, but wouldn't fit well into Star Wars.
Not always. I always thought the Indy films were good, old fashioned romps (with a little religion thrown in for good measure). He couldn't have done any worse than Lucas.
However, Gaim only supports the AIM group of people.
Not true. Gaim has plugins to allow other IM systems to work. I can connect to Y! and I believe you can connect to MSN as well.
Can they leagally go after the people with legitamate MP3s who happen to make them available on the internet or those who illegally download them?
To better explain: if I leave my doors unlocked and someone steals my CDs I may be a moron for not locking my doors, but I certainly didn't commit a crime (the thief did).
Also, if User A has a Old97s CD and legit MP3 copies of the disc on his machine and I also own the same Old97s CD and download his copies (instead of burning my own) did either of us break a law?
I am sorta hazy over both issues.
My wager goes with these things:
- Hosting solutions (or something of that ilk). Its the focus of their two page ads in Linux Magazine each month.
- Windows CE / XP Embeded.
- Small footprint XP that was tuned for blades / black box server/SAN solutions.
These are all areas where Linux is a credible short term threat to MS.
Notice I said This is no arguement for proof of price fix
I didn't say that there was no price fixing. The fact that CDs are uniformly the same price (as compared to the book industry where there's a lot more variability) I think is good proof.
My only beef was the "CDs are cheaper to make, therefor it proves price fixing." That is fundamentally wrong. The price of production is only a small fraction of the cost of bringing an album to market.