There's plausible evidence that it was attempted murder. Needless emotional pain, and every other kind of pain, is no excuse for her inappropriate and aggressive behavior. If she's a hero, then people are misguided. Weak excuses for revenge are the commuppance of schnooks.
1) walk into an airport lounge from outside the airport. Count the cameras and inspections to you and your goods. We were once innocent until proven guilty, and could not be searched without probable cause.
2) every phone call you make, and every email you send, is inspected at minimum, by a bot. We were once innocent until proven guilty, and could not be searched without probable cause.
3) you can be denied access to international transit, and without recourse, and without explanation, at will of the government.
4) your government (and mine) can overthrow a sovereign government based on the flimsiest of contrived evidence, without a plan, and waste perhaps $100billion based on chutzpah of the executive branch.
If I have to go on, you've just come out of a coma that you fell into back in 2000.
Muni WiFi sucks, and the reasons are many. Nonetheless, free calls are the direct enemy of the mobiles/cell companies.
The reason Muni WiFi sucks is that it's haphazardly implemented with the weakest of security, and no session management (802.11n/x) to cross boundaries. But the native 'possibly-free-if-slow' portion means that native VoIP can work well. Uh oh, easy to understand why fixed, not-very-mobile free calls has them worried.
But 3G and '4G' also uniformly suck-- yet have a decent build out, no lost sessions crossing cell boundaries, have an even implementation, and aren't very fast, although the cell companies want to sell you video on your cell phones-- a hilarious sort of thing at best.
Enforcing such a system that you describe would be difficult at best. At least there's constitutional support (and common law) support for copyrights, although that's been twisted by special interests bribing the US Congress to get dubious copyright life support, the DCMA, and other bastardizing of the law.
Buying and selling works then becomes a publisher's business, and not a business/incentive of the creator of artistic works, be they writings, paintings, graphics, and so on. Publishers have the presses and with luck, the distribution. They lack creative/inventive new/fresh/salient content. That's where I come in, as that's what I do: creative work following research, on topical matter that's attractive to buyers of such things.
There might be something like a writer's unions, but these guilds have been ineffectual. Press associations aren't bad, but while you can look to some of them for good journalism, journalism and technical writing are two different disciplines sharing several ethical commonalities. My writings get 'A' scale wages. People pay me $1-$5 per word. Others get more, most get less. My ability to be effective is often quite good, and publishers seek me. Others might be good but are inconsistent or have ethics problems or are simply not that good, and they get less-- call it a 'B' scale wage. The marketplace and the creator's quality and consistency set the wage. My job has been to seek out publishers that pay well and additionally are both ethical and have ongoing needs, as I need to eat every week, not just a few weeks of the year. There's always a negotiation, unless I'm a wage slave to the publisher.
I'm paid for my music when I get royalties from lyrics I've written, and from writing works. You're probably read my writing. You probably have never heard any of my lyrics or songs.
In either case, it was a creative endeavor. We played and payed oodles of royalties to BMI/ASCAP. We paid our union dues, too. At the end of the day, we did kinda ok. When the first baby came along, the royalty checks were pretty handy. That's the system and how it currently works. Vast parts of it are broken and monitored by stooges of the RIAA. Other parts work ok. Indie labels are a good idea and the Internet distribution methodology is vital to their success. Show me the first person to make $100K a year as an Internet Indie, and I'll be heartened. The article implied, and I replied to an Indie producer that has odd expectations of the system, in my opinion.
It doesn't, however. I end up relinquishing my copyright to the people I write for. They, however, are going to enforce it. Steal what they've paid for to have produced, and they'll likely get mad in a legal way.
Books that I've written, however, paid nice royalties. Someone tried to lift paragraphs wholesale from them. They didn't do the research, I did. Their publishers ended up paying me, no lawyers involved. It was my work, not someone's scanner/OCR, that was protected. I wouldn't have known if it weren't for a plucky reader.
Some bakers guard their recipes, others guard them jealously/zealously. Others don't care, and the value they add is locational convenience or simply good taste at a fair price or any combination of those. There are licensed recipes, too. There's a nearby chain that does this, that is, license their recipes. There goods are delicious and a bit pricey. I pay the price as often as I can afford it because there's an assuredness of quality. In turn, they pay the license. All is good.
Another baker makes fabulous stuff, does it all himself, and charges a mint. I go there only because of the outstanding quality, and not often enough because I could go broke eating there. Then there's the local grocer, where I can buy close imitations at much cheaper prices with consistent quality. They're only distributors of the stuff.
The parallels and analogies still apply. I work to create and the life of the asset of the information is its long term worth. Books I wrote 20 years ago are worthless today except as doorstops. Fine. Back then, however, they were hot property. The copyright and what it represents for those old books don't mean that much to me, and such was the expectation of copyrights in the first place-- that they'd diminish in value over time. In my case, they have. It took real effort to write them, and I was well-rewarded. Today, the same texts are quite useless.
A loaf of bread is a different proposition, but the assets needed to continue to cough loaves isn't. Nor are the other overhead costs associated with baking. I have similar values that I have to spend to retain my ability to deliver cogent paragraphs to my editors. And so on.
I believe your assumptions that copyrights protect publishers more than writers would cause an absolute shit storm among the writers I know. It's the asset value that they deal with in negotiations, unless they're under captive contract to a publisher, and even then, there's still an asset value to the copyright.
There's a price for information. Some people donate the cost, others hope for return, like PayPal donations at Groklaw, as an example. If you like mine, don't tip the waitress (actually do, she's poorly paid) and tip me, the hard working blues man.
I built the song, using standard tools (including the I-IV-V progression) and made my own song. Were it successful, I'd like to think someone didn't use my hard work and creativity to their own ends. Do I deserve a share? This is what copyright is about. If I don't deserve a share, then my motivations have to be altruistic and perhaps socialistic-- unless another motivation is the fun of sharing and creativity.
If I write something, you can read it in various places; I'm well-published. Some people hired me, and that's how I'm compensated. If you knew about my website, then you could go there, and read other items for free. You have to, in life, choose your charities.
And every I-IV-V (blues riff) that I play goes way back.
When I write lyrics, do my own lead licks, and put it all together, then it's unique. Ok, it doesn't sell like George Thorogood or Clapton or Hendrix, but both the lines and the lyrics have been ripped off. I wrote them, not the band in Cincinnatti that heard them and uses them.
We disagree. I write for a living. I use my communications skills in return for money. Better quality often leads to higher income. Conversely, bad loaves of my writing bring me no bread.
There are the arguments that say that data wants to be free. Go to Memphis, Nashville, LA, London, NYC, and find some great lyricists whose copyrights earned them a few bucks for some long and hard work.
I have no problem with the argument that the system is broken, and that Indie bands have little to no chance of success based on the model used by the media megaliths. Yet you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater by arguing that copyrights shouldn't exist. As a writer, I expect to get paid for my work, just like the baker down the street, the cop at the corner, and so on. If all I wrote didn't return any money, I wouldn't write for a living-- there would be no living.
As a musician, I went out on the road, snoring in the band bus, tried to stay sober, and be musically creative and deliver what I was paid for-- good music, sometimes really great music. I knew that the record companies were highly unlikely to buy into us because we were out on the edge. We cut numerous tapes, CDs, and so on. A few adventurous and kind people bought them. But we also knew they weren't for subsistence-- our time on stage was what we were being paid for.
Now that there are distribution channels, we found two bands that took two of our songs and essentially dry-ripped them. We have recourse if we want to sue. They haven't made any money with the songs, either (I'm not surprised, nor is my ego bashed). If they had, we'd be likely to want to stop them for the theft they made of our hard work.
There's the gigs, where we made money. There's the media, where we made money, all outside of the 'system'. If we'd done things differently, we might be working for the devil (I mean Sony/BMG/etc) and expecting much different ends to our work. But realistically, we know that's not possible.
Your single solution set doesn't fit all cases. Copyright has justification. DRM is probably a bad idea, because we might be interested in spreading our music far and wide. It's not necessarily a given that bands need or want to do this. Sure, we'd all like some fame, but we're not narcissistic. We'd rather just live, eat, and create. You place too much emphasis on distribution in the same sense that consumerism is a double-edged sword.
MediaMax has below average Mac support, and gets easily confused with batch transfers. Box can do these, at least, but has weak to poor Safari/Gecko support.
And none of these has a cool API where one can just write a stream to. It all involves lots of miscellaneous, semi-intuitive file manipulations. All of them should have a method that requires file encryption, unless a file's going to be published freely as none of them USES STRONG PASSWORD ENFORCEMENT. This stuff is rife for a dictionary-attach-afternoon.
in a few wee Kevlar umbrellas. For the price of this shading material, which they discovered they needed more than TWO DECADES AGO, they wouldn't have multi-million dollar dent problem.
With all due respect, those that believe Gartner are doomed. Let's take a look, however, at the revenue models. The basic DB doesn't make that much revenue, although it's nice. What makes revenue are all of the integration services and respective apps and app-building chores. That's why Oracle and IBM both went on an acquisition bender-- to bolster those revenues.
When you zoom in on the DB and core-related components, Oracle likely trounces DB2 by a 2- or 3-1 margin depending on whose numbers you believe. Internationally, I'd say that it's more like 3-1. But then, few studies have been done that show how under-used those DB engines are, or if they're a means to an end, like supply-chain infrastructure that uses a DB underneath, but where the big money has been spent in the client-side (fat client) apps. Retail is another good place to look to gauge who's ahead. IBM did wonderfully there for decades, but has seen lots of migration away to other platforms by really big clientele. On the low-medium end, when AS-400's ruled the day, IBM did very nicely with cute little bundled expensive boxes, then Oracle (and others) started eating their lunch during the growth years of the late 90's. It's still a trend, offset by growing FOSS solutions (especially in retail and medical 'retail').
I wish I could believe Garnter's numbers and forecasts. If they were true, then we'd all be using OS/2.
Running a closed-source app on an otherwise open source platform has problems to start. IBM's service organization status means that the liability for apps running successfully is largely on them. DB2 isn't really competitive with Oracle, but IBM also needs any number of Oracle's famous acquisitions to run on their infrastructure. The lightweight, one-toe-in-the-water support that Oracle has for Linux (despite the PR otherwise) doesn't make for a successful relationship. It's up to Oracle to figure this one out if they really really want to play in the burgeoning FOSS marketplace. This is a good thing: I never used to believe IBM but their efforts towards FOSS have been fairly stellar, and for the right reasons, IMHO.
If you don't have a handle on the state machine, don't go further and hope that child processes through a fork or a thread spawn are going to inherit the conditions you want. This is a weak argument for spawning Win32 threads.
When compiling, the actions taken to get to assembler/machine code are far different between Win and Posix. Posix has a wonderful elegance and a brevity of code, but Win will take a much larger portion of the libs (depending on whose compiler you're using) to ensure it catches the state, which is inherently larger in Windows than most all *nixes. It might execute more cleanly (and there is no guarantee of this), but at the price of dragging enormous amounts of code with it. That extra code may also contain semaphores and constraints in unknown states, too, not to mention sensitive array boundary and cache management risks.
And so you have to pony up a few more bucks to buy Ultimate instead of home. Go on eBay or CL and find a Saturday night special tinker toy that runs XP. Problem solved for less than US$100.
One more time: boo hoo. Try Parallels. You might like it. It would go well with your w(h)ine. Yeah, the restrictive license sucks. But those that make the software get to call the tune whether we as consumers like it or not. The way to get them, and the only way to get them, is to not buy the stuff. The only place where they feel pain is in their wallet.... or stock price-- these are the only two nerve endings they have.
You have a nice Mac. It runs lots of things nicely. You can use Parallels if you absolutely must run the app. If the app only runs in Vista and not in prior editions of the OS, that would be the first one of those that I've seen.
Just because your Mac won't run VIsta is no fault of the Mac, or VIsta. It's merely a lack of convenience specifically for you.
Use Parallels or just reboot and stop whining. If you're this easily pissed off, please seek professional help.
Um, yes, if you don't protect your rights, and have become injured, and you know you're injured, then several theories of law say you're tacitly approving of the injury, and your losses become assuaged by this approval. Your knowledge of tort law needs some brushing up. The law actually does work that way.
Once Microsoft starts filing patent litigation, a cadre of cross-litigation will ensue, from the likes of Red Hat (small cap) to IBM (major cap). Thanks to the SCO litigation, the ability to prove property rights is no longer in question. The remaining patent issues will cause a backlash against Microsoft of the size it has never before seen, just when its flagship operating system can't get out of the tank, and its flagship server operating system is devolving into little server licenses for all of the elements that should be in the box, like certificate management, email, and so on. Go ahead Steve. Make your lawyers rich, and your friends very pissed off.
Yet these are organization's tools, not an extension or a portal of entertainment devices.
Because we require so much work of people, at seeming all hours (read Crackberries, constant email/mobile/cell/IM/texting) the blur is difficult to define the boundaries of work and home life. It's no fracking wonder why people believe that their office PC is just another portal to iTunes.
And along with credit card numbers, SSNs, (SINs in Canada, etc.), notebooks, memory devices, and so on are compromised on seemingly a daily basis. No fracking wonder there, either. It takes a decidedly cogent (not reactive) culture to guard against misuse and data theft/compromise.
Most data security is laughable. Even good news-scare stories make no difference in cultural attitude. It's going to take a big organization going down (and hard) to shake up how people view office technology. And those were the people with good intentions.
Slashdot Mirror
We are in charge of our emotions.
Hers got away.
Professionalism went away.
There's plausible evidence that it was attempted murder. Needless emotional pain, and every other kind of pain, is no excuse for her inappropriate and aggressive behavior. If she's a hero, then people are misguided. Weak excuses for revenge are the commuppance of schnooks.
Consider:
1) walk into an airport lounge from outside the airport. Count the cameras and inspections to you and your goods. We were once innocent until proven guilty, and could not be searched without probable cause.
2) every phone call you make, and every email you send, is inspected at minimum, by a bot. We were once innocent until proven guilty, and could not be searched without probable cause.
3) you can be denied access to international transit, and without recourse, and without explanation, at will of the government.
4) your government (and mine) can overthrow a sovereign government based on the flimsiest of contrived evidence, without a plan, and waste perhaps $100billion based on chutzpah of the executive branch.
If I have to go on, you've just come out of a coma that you fell into back in 2000.
Freedom, apparently, isn't in the mix, as in free speech.
I feel awful for them, but they probably feel awful for Americans, what with the incredible liberties that we've lost.
Muni WiFi sucks, and the reasons are many. Nonetheless, free calls are the direct enemy of the mobiles/cell companies.
The reason Muni WiFi sucks is that it's haphazardly implemented with the weakest of security, and no session management (802.11n/x) to cross boundaries. But the native 'possibly-free-if-slow' portion means that native VoIP can work well. Uh oh, easy to understand why fixed, not-very-mobile free calls has them worried.
But 3G and '4G' also uniformly suck-- yet have a decent build out, no lost sessions crossing cell boundaries, have an even implementation, and aren't very fast, although the cell companies want to sell you video on your cell phones-- a hilarious sort of thing at best.
Like him or not, he's dead-on.
Enforcing such a system that you describe would be difficult at best. At least there's constitutional support (and common law) support for copyrights, although that's been twisted by special interests bribing the US Congress to get dubious copyright life support, the DCMA, and other bastardizing of the law.
Buying and selling works then becomes a publisher's business, and not a business/incentive of the creator of artistic works, be they writings, paintings, graphics, and so on. Publishers have the presses and with luck, the distribution. They lack creative/inventive new/fresh/salient content. That's where I come in, as that's what I do: creative work following research, on topical matter that's attractive to buyers of such things.
There might be something like a writer's unions, but these guilds have been ineffectual. Press associations aren't bad, but while you can look to some of them for good journalism, journalism and technical writing are two different disciplines sharing several ethical commonalities. My writings get 'A' scale wages. People pay me $1-$5 per word. Others get more, most get less. My ability to be effective is often quite good, and publishers seek me. Others might be good but are inconsistent or have ethics problems or are simply not that good, and they get less-- call it a 'B' scale wage. The marketplace and the creator's quality and consistency set the wage. My job has been to seek out publishers that pay well and additionally are both ethical and have ongoing needs, as I need to eat every week, not just a few weeks of the year. There's always a negotiation, unless I'm a wage slave to the publisher.
DRM establishes a license to be entertained.
I don't necessarily agree with DRM.
I'm paid for my music when I get royalties from lyrics I've written, and from writing works. You're probably read my writing. You probably have never heard any of my lyrics or songs.
In either case, it was a creative endeavor. We played and payed oodles of royalties to BMI/ASCAP. We paid our union dues, too. At the end of the day, we did kinda ok. When the first baby came along, the royalty checks were pretty handy. That's the system and how it currently works. Vast parts of it are broken and monitored by stooges of the RIAA. Other parts work ok. Indie labels are a good idea and the Internet distribution methodology is vital to their success. Show me the first person to make $100K a year as an Internet Indie, and I'll be heartened. The article implied, and I replied to an Indie producer that has odd expectations of the system, in my opinion.
It doesn't, however. I end up relinquishing my copyright to the people I write for. They, however, are going to enforce it. Steal what they've paid for to have produced, and they'll likely get mad in a legal way.
Books that I've written, however, paid nice royalties. Someone tried to lift paragraphs wholesale from them. They didn't do the research, I did. Their publishers ended up paying me, no lawyers involved. It was my work, not someone's scanner/OCR, that was protected. I wouldn't have known if it weren't for a plucky reader.
Some bakers guard their recipes, others guard them jealously/zealously. Others don't care, and the value they add is locational convenience or simply good taste at a fair price or any combination of those. There are licensed recipes, too. There's a nearby chain that does this, that is, license their recipes. There goods are delicious and a bit pricey. I pay the price as often as I can afford it because there's an assuredness of quality. In turn, they pay the license. All is good.
Another baker makes fabulous stuff, does it all himself, and charges a mint. I go there only because of the outstanding quality, and not often enough because I could go broke eating there. Then there's the local grocer, where I can buy close imitations at much cheaper prices with consistent quality. They're only distributors of the stuff.
The parallels and analogies still apply. I work to create and the life of the asset of the information is its long term worth. Books I wrote 20 years ago are worthless today except as doorstops. Fine. Back then, however, they were hot property. The copyright and what it represents for those old books don't mean that much to me, and such was the expectation of copyrights in the first place-- that they'd diminish in value over time. In my case, they have. It took real effort to write them, and I was well-rewarded. Today, the same texts are quite useless.
A loaf of bread is a different proposition, but the assets needed to continue to cough loaves isn't. Nor are the other overhead costs associated with baking. I have similar values that I have to spend to retain my ability to deliver cogent paragraphs to my editors. And so on.
I believe your assumptions that copyrights protect publishers more than writers would cause an absolute shit storm among the writers I know. It's the asset value that they deal with in negotiations, unless they're under captive contract to a publisher, and even then, there's still an asset value to the copyright.
There's a price for information. Some people donate the cost, others hope for return, like PayPal donations at Groklaw, as an example. If you like mine, don't tip the waitress (actually do, she's poorly paid) and tip me, the hard working blues man.
I built the song, using standard tools (including the I-IV-V progression) and made my own song. Were it successful, I'd like to think someone didn't use my hard work and creativity to their own ends. Do I deserve a share? This is what copyright is about. If I don't deserve a share, then my motivations have to be altruistic and perhaps socialistic-- unless another motivation is the fun of sharing and creativity.
If I write something, you can read it in various places; I'm well-published. Some people hired me, and that's how I'm compensated. If you knew about my website, then you could go there, and read other items for free. You have to, in life, choose your charities.
It is.
And every I-IV-V (blues riff) that I play goes way back.
When I write lyrics, do my own lead licks, and put it all together, then it's unique. Ok, it doesn't sell like George Thorogood or Clapton or Hendrix, but both the lines and the lyrics have been ripped off. I wrote them, not the band in Cincinnatti that heard them and uses them.
We disagree. I write for a living. I use my communications skills in return for money. Better quality often leads to higher income. Conversely, bad loaves of my writing bring me no bread.
There are the arguments that say that data wants to be free. Go to Memphis, Nashville, LA, London, NYC, and find some great lyricists whose copyrights earned them a few bucks for some long and hard work.
I have no problem with the argument that the system is broken, and that Indie bands have little to no chance of success based on the model used by the media megaliths. Yet you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater by arguing that copyrights shouldn't exist. As a writer, I expect to get paid for my work, just like the baker down the street, the cop at the corner, and so on. If all I wrote didn't return any money, I wouldn't write for a living-- there would be no living.
As a musician, I went out on the road, snoring in the band bus, tried to stay sober, and be musically creative and deliver what I was paid for-- good music, sometimes really great music. I knew that the record companies were highly unlikely to buy into us because we were out on the edge. We cut numerous tapes, CDs, and so on. A few adventurous and kind people bought them. But we also knew they weren't for subsistence-- our time on stage was what we were being paid for.
Now that there are distribution channels, we found two bands that took two of our songs and essentially dry-ripped them. We have recourse if we want to sue. They haven't made any money with the songs, either (I'm not surprised, nor is my ego bashed). If they had, we'd be likely to want to stop them for the theft they made of our hard work.
There's the gigs, where we made money. There's the media, where we made money, all outside of the 'system'. If we'd done things differently, we might be working for the devil (I mean Sony/BMG/etc) and expecting much different ends to our work. But realistically, we know that's not possible.
Your single solution set doesn't fit all cases. Copyright has justification. DRM is probably a bad idea, because we might be interested in spreading our music far and wide. It's not necessarily a given that bands need or want to do this. Sure, we'd all like some fame, but we're not narcissistic. We'd rather just live, eat, and create. You place too much emphasis on distribution in the same sense that consumerism is a double-edged sword.
MediaMax has below average Mac support, and gets easily confused with batch transfers. Box can do these, at least, but has weak to poor Safari/Gecko support.
And none of these has a cool API where one can just write a stream to. It all involves lots of miscellaneous, semi-intuitive file manipulations. All of them should have a method that requires file encryption, unless a file's going to be published freely as none of them USES STRONG PASSWORD ENFORCEMENT. This stuff is rife for a dictionary-attach-afternoon.
in a few wee Kevlar umbrellas. For the price of this shading material, which they discovered they needed more than TWO DECADES AGO, they wouldn't have multi-million dollar dent problem.
With all due respect, those that believe Gartner are doomed. Let's take a look, however, at the revenue models. The basic DB doesn't make that much revenue, although it's nice. What makes revenue are all of the integration services and respective apps and app-building chores. That's why Oracle and IBM both went on an acquisition bender-- to bolster those revenues.
When you zoom in on the DB and core-related components, Oracle likely trounces DB2 by a 2- or 3-1 margin depending on whose numbers you believe. Internationally, I'd say that it's more like 3-1. But then, few studies have been done that show how under-used those DB engines are, or if they're a means to an end, like supply-chain infrastructure that uses a DB underneath, but where the big money has been spent in the client-side (fat client) apps. Retail is another good place to look to gauge who's ahead. IBM did wonderfully there for decades, but has seen lots of migration away to other platforms by really big clientele. On the low-medium end, when AS-400's ruled the day, IBM did very nicely with cute little bundled expensive boxes, then Oracle (and others) started eating their lunch during the growth years of the late 90's. It's still a trend, offset by growing FOSS solutions (especially in retail and medical 'retail').
I wish I could believe Garnter's numbers and forecasts. If they were true, then we'd all be using OS/2.
Running a closed-source app on an otherwise open source platform has problems to start. IBM's service organization status means that the liability for apps running successfully is largely on them. DB2 isn't really competitive with Oracle, but IBM also needs any number of Oracle's famous acquisitions to run on their infrastructure. The lightweight, one-toe-in-the-water support that Oracle has for Linux (despite the PR otherwise) doesn't make for a successful relationship. It's up to Oracle to figure this one out if they really really want to play in the burgeoning FOSS marketplace. This is a good thing: I never used to believe IBM but their efforts towards FOSS have been fairly stellar, and for the right reasons, IMHO.
If you don't have a handle on the state machine, don't go further and hope that child processes through a fork or a thread spawn are going to inherit the conditions you want. This is a weak argument for spawning Win32 threads.
When compiling, the actions taken to get to assembler/machine code are far different between Win and Posix. Posix has a wonderful elegance and a brevity of code, but Win will take a much larger portion of the libs (depending on whose compiler you're using) to ensure it catches the state, which is inherently larger in Windows than most all *nixes. It might execute more cleanly (and there is no guarantee of this), but at the price of dragging enormous amounts of code with it. That extra code may also contain semaphores and constraints in unknown states, too, not to mention sensitive array boundary and cache management risks.
And so you have to pony up a few more bucks to buy Ultimate instead of home. Go on eBay or CL and find a Saturday night special tinker toy that runs XP. Problem solved for less than US$100.
One more time: boo hoo. Try Parallels. You might like it. It would go well with your w(h)ine. Yeah, the restrictive license sucks. But those that make the software get to call the tune whether we as consumers like it or not. The way to get them, and the only way to get them, is to not buy the stuff. The only place where they feel pain is in their wallet.... or stock price-- these are the only two nerve endings they have.
Boo hoo.
You have a nice Mac. It runs lots of things nicely. You can use Parallels if you absolutely must run the app. If the app only runs in Vista and not in prior editions of the OS, that would be the first one of those that I've seen.
Just because your Mac won't run VIsta is no fault of the Mac, or VIsta. It's merely a lack of convenience specifically for you.
Use Parallels or just reboot and stop whining. If you're this easily pissed off, please seek professional help.
Um, yes, if you don't protect your rights, and have become injured, and you know you're injured, then several theories of law say you're tacitly approving of the injury, and your losses become assuaged by this approval. Your knowledge of tort law needs some brushing up. The law actually does work that way.
They both died of lung cancer. Look it up.
Let's hope they cache in the asteroid belts.
The Galaxy-Wide-Web!!! And imagine the texting fun! Free VoIP Calls from Phobos and Deimos!
Once Microsoft starts filing patent litigation, a cadre of cross-litigation will ensue, from the likes of Red Hat (small cap) to IBM (major cap). Thanks to the SCO litigation, the ability to prove property rights is no longer in question. The remaining patent issues will cause a backlash against Microsoft of the size it has never before seen, just when its flagship operating system can't get out of the tank, and its flagship server operating system is devolving into little server licenses for all of the elements that should be in the box, like certificate management, email, and so on. Go ahead Steve. Make your lawyers rich, and your friends very pissed off.
What hubris. What self-aggrandizement! What a collosal waste of good disk space! What ego!
Wait, buy me some Seagate stock!
Yet these are organization's tools, not an extension or a portal of entertainment devices.
Because we require so much work of people, at seeming all hours (read Crackberries, constant email/mobile/cell/IM/texting) the blur is difficult to define the boundaries of work and home life. It's no fracking wonder why people believe that their office PC is just another portal to iTunes.
And along with credit card numbers, SSNs, (SINs in Canada, etc.), notebooks, memory devices, and so on are compromised on seemingly a daily basis. No fracking wonder there, either. It takes a decidedly cogent (not reactive) culture to guard against misuse and data theft/compromise.
Most data security is laughable. Even good news-scare stories make no difference in cultural attitude. It's going to take a big organization going down (and hard) to shake up how people view office technology. And those were the people with good intentions.