Ok, tell me why they wouldn't simply use low-compression.mp3, or the often "underlooked (and therefore lamented)".ogg format? The only news here is that non-drm files are being offered through I-Tunes, and that it might harm DRM-WMAs, which is a Good Thing (tm) for consumers.
The sticker says "Vista Capable", and it's unreasonable to expect that the customer gets his PhD degree in MicrosoftSpeak before buying. "
How about a 3rd grade education?
"Vista Capable" means "Fully Supported" to a typical customer. If I were a member of the jury I would vote against MS here.
This is a trap that is well known, and other more experienced advertisers do not neglect to provide a fine print with tons of disclaimers. MS was just doing a sloppy ad job, just as it does most of all other things, and the system of stickers was intentionally designed to confuse the customer; he has no way of knowing that "Capable" actually means "Incapable".
See past your hatred.... that leads to the dark side of the law.
Seriously, "Capable" means "Capable", in plain language: it means it's capable of running Vista. The question that really should be asked here, is "Is Microsoft selling Vista as Aero, or is it selling it as an OS?", and that is one heck of a dicey thing to determine in a forum, and in a court, it will be fairly near impossible to prove.
Using terms like "Great Feature A", and "Top quality Feature B" is *puffing*, and upselling isn't false advertising unless they directly say something false. IMHO (IANAL, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night), as much as I hate Microsoft, they did not misrepresent anything here.
Just because the people selling the MS products are bad too, doesn't make MS any better.
Unfair business practices are the main reason of MS' dominance on the desktop market.
And just because I ate a tuna sandwich this afternoon doesn't mean that racial violence should occur in New York. The one isn't relevant to the other. In this case, the question is not "Is Microsoft Bad?" (yes), or "Does Microsoft do thing that are anti-competitive and bad business practices?" (probably), but rather "In this instance was this breaking the law or somehow underhanded?"(no). Unless they lied, Caveat Emptor. Microsoft is not responsible for educating people about the basics of the current state of their industry, any more than Suse is responsible for false advertising if a half-brained idiot (or a fully brained one) can't install their product.
There is a difference between "Vista Capable" as a sticker on a machine, and a sales guy talking up all the great things the computer can do. The machine -is- Vista Capable. What that -means- it really the issue here, and I suspect that a majority of the blame for consumers getting something they didn't expect it "Joey the car mechanic" selling computers at Best Buy as a second job.
To most of the people who use computers, there's no difference between the core of an OS and the user interface. It's the software that makes the computer work, and it's not the same software that they thought they'd be able to run when they saw "Vista capable" on the machines.
That doesn't necessarily mean the suit itself has any merit, but I can definitely see where the customers are coming from.
Are you sure about that? And if true, should the customers be required to educate themselves about what they're buying before they do so? Caveat Emptor, anyone?
Given the wealth of information on the topic (this isn't comparing north bridge chipsets, or something of that nature), why exactly would you expect that people couldn't ask the question "Will it run the pretty stuff in Vista"? And if the salesperson misrepresents it how that's Microsoft's fault?
That's what happens when you market stripped down versions and feature full versions at the same time. It's like being promised a BMW and getting a Honda instead. Most average users don't understand all these differences and the sales person happily told them "Vista will run on it" to make a sale.
You see the bolded text up there? That would be why it's not exactly Microsoft's fault.
I run Linux exclusively and in general throw punches at Microsoft when they're valid..... ...but the core of an OS is NOT the graphical fluff. They didn't mislead the customers with the "Vista Capable" stickers, the machine IS. If you applied this standard to -any- software it would be in trouble. Take games, for example. "Runs best on ATI"? "System Requirements"? If I ran most FPS games with the bare minimum, my gaming experience with them would be, say, about the same as the users buying stripped down PCs to run Vista. You don't buy a cheap 4-banger and expect a race car, and although the cheaper car can go 70mph, it's not going to feel as nice as a Ferrari doing the same thing.
Preface: I am not a lawyer, I can't even play one on TV.
So.... I would have assumed that when they sign up to use TurnItIn they agree to some sort of legal terms.... perhaps that's not the case?
If they did, I would assume the appropriate lawsuit would be against the schools that are forcing them to attend (truancy laws) and submit copyrighted works.
That, in turn, would never work for (American, at least) University students, as from what I know (the few I've attended) they have students sign agreements about the works they produce while in class, etc.
What ever happened to email signatures/authentication/etc? Rather than mess around with specific providers, they should talk to the folks writing the software and develop or work with an existing standard for identity authentication. It's not like encryption/signatures don't already exist, the problem is in mass adoption and making it nearly thoughtless to do so that is the difficulty.
ISP for geeks now owned by a company that is beholden to "big media" interests.
I'm sure this will end well....
At risk of the Apple Mafia modding me down
on
TextMate
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Oh, I don't know, perhaps you don't buy into the hype that is apple? Or, say, your macbook pro died and now you're running linux on something else? Or, perhaps you like some of the features of the newest linux editions and didn't want to upgrade your copy of the Mac OS?
The wright (right?) brothers
Personally, I always preferred the "Wight Brothers", but that's just my appreciation for Stephen Jackson and/or JRR Tolkein's work coming out.
Ok, so let's compare what the economically challenged folks are talking about (keeping in mind my original post had estimated numbers, I didn't have time to calculate them), $60 is HORRIBLE in comparison to the 40-50$ SNES games back in the early 90s, k?
According to your site:
What cost $60 in 2006 would cost $42.02 in 1992.
Ta da - assuming that the average cartridge in the new game market (1985 Atari games aren't run on the same marketing model or mass market as SNES generation games)), it's extremely questionable to imply that games are -more- expensive, especially given the massive improvements in complexity, play/replay time and such. Trying to say that the $60 you spend in 2007 (which is equivalent to the cost of a new NES cartridge, and if you check, same for SNES) was less value to you in terms of "work value/cost" is sheer lunacy, and the market laughs at you (look at game sales in 2005-2007 and 1995-1997 and you'll see what I mean).
Someone obviously failed basic reading comprehension 101.
I was about to reply to your post, but the fellow who commented first said it verbatim - don't get haughty just because you don't like my point:).
....and your post was grade "A" fertilizer.
Look, real prices of games have actually gone down over time due to inflation. 60$ today is -not- the same as 60$ in 1995 or 1990, etc. When you were buying the high end games for your SNES, you were paying the equivalent of roughly 20$ more in terms of today's money. The reason for games being cheaper also probably has something to do with the fact that more of them are selling (volume).
In short, greed has nothing to do with it. It's a simple matter of money value over time, and mildly increased production costs.
And honestly, using a vague work history for the record industry isn't likely to increase your credibility for most people here, most of all in a post that tries to imply that -game- publishers are greedy.
What am I doing this morning? Why, furiously working on my patent on all types of sort! First year Computer Science students will BOW to my will (assuming they want to pass that radix sort assignment!)! Muwhahahaha!
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, tell me why they wouldn't simply use low-compression .mp3, or the often "underlooked (and therefore lamented)" .ogg format? The only news here is that non-drm files are being offered through I-Tunes, and that it might harm DRM-WMAs, which is a Good Thing (tm) for consumers.
Hmm.... I took the blue pill, but the results were more similar to the Enzyte guy than what happened to Neo....
I wonder what their avatars look like.......
Agent Smith: Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a phone call... if you're unable to speak?
..... the in-game weather will always be wrong?
I, for one, welcome our new hyper-intelligent engineered-brain rat overlords! I've also invested in cheese futures.
The sticker says "Vista Capable", and it's unreasonable to expect that the customer gets his PhD degree in MicrosoftSpeak before buying. "
How about a 3rd grade education?
"Vista Capable" means "Fully Supported" to a typical customer. If I were a member of the jury I would vote against MS here.
This is a trap that is well known, and other more experienced advertisers do not neglect to provide a fine print with tons of disclaimers. MS was just doing a sloppy ad job, just as it does most of all other things, and the system of stickers was intentionally designed to confuse the customer; he has no way of knowing that "Capable" actually means "Incapable".
See past your hatred.... that leads to the dark side of the law.
Seriously, "Capable" means "Capable", in plain language: it means it's capable of running Vista. The question that really should be asked here, is "Is Microsoft selling Vista as Aero, or is it selling it as an OS?", and that is one heck of a dicey thing to determine in a forum, and in a court, it will be fairly near impossible to prove.
Using terms like "Great Feature A", and "Top quality Feature B" is *puffing*, and upselling isn't false advertising unless they directly say something false. IMHO (IANAL, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night), as much as I hate Microsoft, they did not misrepresent anything here.
Just because the people selling the MS products are bad too, doesn't make MS any better. Unfair business practices are the main reason of MS' dominance on the desktop market.
And just because I ate a tuna sandwich this afternoon doesn't mean that racial violence should occur in New York. The one isn't relevant to the other. In this case, the question is not "Is Microsoft Bad?" (yes), or "Does Microsoft do thing that are anti-competitive and bad business practices?" (probably), but rather "In this instance was this breaking the law or somehow underhanded?"(no). Unless they lied, Caveat Emptor. Microsoft is not responsible for educating people about the basics of the current state of their industry, any more than Suse is responsible for false advertising if a half-brained idiot (or a fully brained one) can't install their product.
There is a difference between "Vista Capable" as a sticker on a machine, and a sales guy talking up all the great things the computer can do. The machine -is- Vista Capable. What that -means- it really the issue here, and I suspect that a majority of the blame for consumers getting something they didn't expect it "Joey the car mechanic" selling computers at Best Buy as a second job.
I'm sure you're not trying to compare "web browsing functionality" to "Aero" and 3d desktop effects?
Let's get real here - having fancy transparency and window transition effects isn't exactly on the same level as a basic application, now is it?
To most of the people who use computers, there's no difference between the core of an OS and the user interface. It's the software that makes the computer work, and it's not the same software that they thought they'd be able to run when they saw "Vista capable" on the machines. That doesn't necessarily mean the suit itself has any merit, but I can definitely see where the customers are coming from. Are you sure about that? And if true, should the customers be required to educate themselves about what they're buying before they do so? Caveat Emptor, anyone?
Given the wealth of information on the topic (this isn't comparing north bridge chipsets, or something of that nature), why exactly would you expect that people couldn't ask the question "Will it run the pretty stuff in Vista"? And if the salesperson misrepresents it how that's Microsoft's fault?
That's what happens when you market stripped down versions and feature full versions at the same time. It's like being promised a BMW and getting a Honda instead. Most average users don't understand all these differences and the sales person happily told them "Vista will run on it" to make a sale.
You see the bolded text up there? That would be why it's not exactly Microsoft's fault.
Look, I hate Windows.
...but the core of an OS is NOT the graphical fluff. They didn't mislead the customers with the "Vista Capable" stickers, the machine IS. If you applied this standard to -any- software it would be in trouble. Take games, for example. "Runs best on ATI"? "System Requirements"? If I ran most FPS games with the bare minimum, my gaming experience with them would be, say, about the same as the users buying stripped down PCs to run Vista. You don't buy a cheap 4-banger and expect a race car, and although the cheaper car can go 70mph, it's not going to feel as nice as a Ferrari doing the same thing.
I run Linux exclusively and in general throw punches at Microsoft when they're valid.....
Having not read the article, I'd like to know...... ... do they call these Video Games "Acute Heart Disease" and "Alzheimers"?
Preface: I am not a lawyer, I can't even play one on TV. So.... I would have assumed that when they sign up to use TurnItIn they agree to some sort of legal terms.... perhaps that's not the case?
If they did, I would assume the appropriate lawsuit would be against the schools that are forcing them to attend (truancy laws) and submit copyrighted works.
That, in turn, would never work for (American, at least) University students, as from what I know (the few I've attended) they have students sign agreements about the works they produce while in class, etc.
(and this message was brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Bureau). I hate it when I don't click preview.....
What ever happened to email signatures/authentication/etc? Rather than mess around with specific providers, they should talk to the folks writing the software and develop or work with an existing standard for identity authentication. It's not like encryption/signatures don't already exist, the problem is in mass adoption and making it nearly thoughtless to do so that is the difficulty.
a ten micron long guitar (which was actually played)
I was horribly disappointed that they didn't make the "world's smallest violin".
Correct me if I'm wrong....but isn't this less of a license issue and more of an issue of a company having financial difficulties?
Let's think about this for a moment:
ISP for geeks now owned by a company that is beholden to "big media" interests.
I'm sure this will end well....
Oh, I don't know, perhaps you don't buy into the hype that is apple? Or, say, your macbook pro died and now you're running linux on something else? Or, perhaps you like some of the features of the newest linux editions and didn't want to upgrade your copy of the Mac OS?
Lots of reasons, it's not -that- far-fetched.
The wright (right?) brothers Personally, I always preferred the "Wight Brothers", but that's just my appreciation for Stephen Jackson and/or JRR Tolkein's work coming out.
Ok, so let's compare what the economically challenged folks are talking about (keeping in mind my original post had estimated numbers, I didn't have time to calculate them), $60 is HORRIBLE in comparison to the 40-50$ SNES games back in the early 90s, k?
According to your site:
What cost $60 in 2006 would cost $42.02 in 1992.
Ta da - assuming that the average cartridge in the new game market (1985 Atari games aren't run on the same marketing model or mass market as SNES generation games)), it's extremely questionable to imply that games are -more- expensive, especially given the massive improvements in complexity, play/replay time and such. Trying to say that the $60 you spend in 2007 (which is equivalent to the cost of a new NES cartridge, and if you check, same for SNES) was less value to you in terms of "work value/cost" is sheer lunacy, and the market laughs at you (look at game sales in 2005-2007 and 1995-1997 and you'll see what I mean).
Someone obviously failed basic reading comprehension 101. I was about to reply to your post, but the fellow who commented first said it verbatim - don't get haughty just because you don't like my point :).
....and your post was grade "A" fertilizer. Look, real prices of games have actually gone down over time due to inflation. 60$ today is -not- the same as 60$ in 1995 or 1990, etc. When you were buying the high end games for your SNES, you were paying the equivalent of roughly 20$ more in terms of today's money. The reason for games being cheaper also probably has something to do with the fact that more of them are selling (volume).
In short, greed has nothing to do with it. It's a simple matter of money value over time, and mildly increased production costs.
And honestly, using a vague work history for the record industry isn't likely to increase your credibility for most people here, most of all in a post that tries to imply that -game- publishers are greedy.
What am I doing this morning? Why, furiously working on my patent on all types of sort! First year Computer Science students will BOW to my will (assuming they want to pass that radix sort assignment!)! Muwhahahaha!