"In the short- and medium-term, the question is what kind of access middle-class and upper-class people have. There seems to be some obsession with getting illiterate farmers technology that the average person in wealthy countries doesn't have, but to my mind that's far less relevant than the overall level of computer use and access."
I agree, on a number of levels. IMHO, an illiterate goat-rancher in Fillintheblankistan earning less than $1 a day really has a lot less reason to be awarded government funds to browse the internet than, say, a voucher-student who is earning their way through school with high grades. This doesn't mean I don't think the goat-rancher should have the -right- to browse the net, but rather that if someone wants a freebie, they should be earning it in some way, or proving that they are putting that freebie to good productive use. So, perhaps if the goat-herder could show he was using the internet priviledges for agricultural or business research purposes, he could continue to gain free access. However, since he's illiterate I'm pretty sure he'll probably just be browsing for pr0n.
"A single, dirt-cheap cyber-cafe provides far less access than 50 expensive, well-maintained ones..."
This one I'm afraid I have to disagree with. The Speakeasy Cafe, in Seattle, WA was a dirt-cheap cyber-cafe. It provided great, fast access at a fraction of what other places charged, along with dialup services, coffee, beer, live bands, and you could even smoke!!! It was my personal favorite social hub in downtown.
Then suddenly the owners noticed how popular the place was, turned it into the Starbucks of internet cafe's. You couldn't smoke, no live music, and now they offer crummy broadband and domain hosting. Which is a shame, because it used to be such a nice place. Anyway, personal experience and all...
Okay, once again, I'm failing to see the benefit the article claims.
How exactly does open-source code make for a more secure government? It would seem to me that giving the source-code to your encryption away, that you are practically begging others to learn how to hack it. At least proprietary software has a tiny measure of defense. It would also spread your possible leak-sources from the responsibility of one entity, the corporation that made it, to pretty much the entire world.
I believe, in the interests of National Defense, it would be best to have any sort of security source code until very tight lock and key.
Actually, I heard it on NPR earlier this year. I'm afraid I can't be more specific than this, as it happened more than two days ago, and my long term memory is always fuzzy. But according to the story on NPR, such is the case.
1.) Hence the use of the word "supposedly". I never said it was absolute.
2.) I think it could possibly be done, but they'd have to involve the Time Scoop of Rassilon, which I think was destroyed at some point.
Rather than answer each individual reply, I'll just do a blanket one.
Oops, then. My bad. I was thinking of copyrights vs. patents. Obviously I misunderstood. My post was not intended as a troll, but rather a defense of the wrong idea. I remain unconvinced that patents are a bad thing, but I was unfortunately defending them while thinking "copyright".
Okay, how is the loss of a software patent a Good Thing(tm) in a free-market economy? I'd really like someone to explain this to me, because it sounds supsiciously like a big load of fresh steaming compost. Honestly now. Explain how it is beneficial for your creation to not be protected against theft by competitors? How does it encourage the market to grow and expand, when businesses suddenly decide to pursue more protected interests?
Do you honestly think the computer software market grew because of John Q. Coder in his living room? No! Sure, John Q. may have produced a higher quality software, but his marketing and distribution were limited strictly to his personal resources. The only reason there is a multi-billion dollar market in the software industry right now is because of the very giants you are ranting against. Don't like Microsoft? Tough. There's a very good chance that they are the reason that either you, or someone close to you even has their job right now.
Look, if someone's political views go the line of Communism, that's all well and good. You can go live in China, where you will be told what software you are allowed to use, and when, and god help you if you make the mistake of complaining about governmental policy there. But if you're going to live in the capitalist world, you have to grow up and accept the fact that sometimes a company you personally don't like still has a right to exist, and has just as much right to protect its interests as the underdog.
Having been a long-time fan of Dr. Who (God Bless Tom Baker, the REAL Doctor), I have always felt that the best villains were the more subtle varieties. A Hive-Mind species just isn't that scary because the Doctor can easily outwit Daleks with a tweed jacket draped over them, or stop the Cybermen with a clever pun and the extinction of dinosaurs.
Obviously, The Master was among the best villains, along with The Rani. Teamed up, they made a formidable force. Heck, it took an equally brilliant mind, Adrick to break up their little duo. However, the Master is supposedly dead for certain, and I can't remember what became of The Rani... so we can't use them.
Since The Doctor can time travel, and has a fascination with Earth, I recommend pitting him against the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and The I.R.S.
Since computer generated graphics have become considerably cheaper, perhaps rather than limiting themselves to what monsters can be made with foil, cardboard boxes, and 200-watt light bulbs, they can now try something like having him fight a race of aliens with powers similar to the X-Men's Nightcrawler, like super-speed, teleportation, and stuff like that. Not terribly difficult to do, even on a tight budget, and makes for a very difficult to vanquish villain.
Actually, they could even tie in to other movies as well, with a bit of a licensing deal. The Doctor could fight The Predator or The Aliens. That would be sweet. I'd actually start a betting pool on THAT episode.
and lastly, his greatest accomplishment, going back in time and offing George Lucas before he could create Jar Jar Binks.
Nah, the equivolent of Star Wars without Darth Vader would have been if they had remove The Master from Dr. Who. The Daleks, while a powerful force en masse, were individually unable to overcome even a tweed jacket draped hastily over them.
The equivolent of Star Trek without the Klingons would probably be the best equivolent.
Not entirely true, but I see your point. However, the estate holders of Charlie Chaplain's old films, for instance, are not releasing the silent versions of many of his famous movies to DVD, only the ones with actual sound, voices, etc. This is because they feel that it holds closest to his own aspirations, as Chaplain was a huge advocate of sound in movies. Though there would be a sizeable market for the silent ones, the family wants to hold on to the original artist's ideal.
Granted I think this bites, as I like the silent versions better in the same way I think a black and white photograph requires more talent than colour photos, but that's my personal opinion, and not his vision.
Not that this remotely applies to Dr. Who and Daleks, but in response to your comment, my reply is "Perhaps often, they do only consider money, but sometimes that's better than considering only the artist's vision. It gives it no room to grow or be remembered properly, it only limits us to the creator's own interpretation."
Considering XML probably has a shelf life of only a few more years before the next bigger and better thing comes along, maybe they could take that software (and admin maintenance) and put it into something a bit more effective, like a green roof.
Pirates! (2004) - It's not out yet, but will hopefully be at the end of this year. For those unfamiliar with it, it's a revamped version of Sid Meiyer's Pirates! Also, Pirate Hunter Tortuga would be a good game in the interim.
Civilization III - Any of this series would be good, but IMHO, Civ3 has been the best so far.
Axis & Allies - Every-body...wants to rule the world... The board game was great.
Oregon Trail - I believe they've made a new version of this game, but it was pretty good on the old macs.
Colonization - I think this was also a Sid Meiyer...
Ehhh... come to think of it... pretty much any game by Sid Meiyer is a great idea for schools to use...
Take a good, hard look at where the world is going in terms of networking everything, and every network interlaced. Today, when a virus strikes, a virus loses a corporation lots of money. (sarcasm) But that's okay, because they're The Man, and we all hate The Man. It's not like it did anyone any harm, right? The Man just didn't get to buy another Learjet that year. (/sarcasm)
But seriously, I don't believe an economic crime demands a lethal punishment. Yet. Why? Because preventatives, insurance, investment, and policy (wise business decisions) can all decrease the effects of these crimes.
However, take into account Hospitals. As more medical equipment comes online, and has to be administered via network, medical care becomes more automated by computer. Medical Files are already on vulnerable networks. As a rule, most hospitals are understaffed, overworked, and in a constant state of emergency. So what happens when a virus brings down an entire hospital's networks for the day? People die. Perhaps the virus only corrupts here and there, unnoticeably. Suddenly medical info is incorrect, or unavailable in a time of crisis during an operation. Someone dies. Perhaps, further down the road, processes (such as medication, or life support) become networked, and a virus brings those systems down, or corrupts the system enough to cause a problem.
That's the most obvious way of a virus writer committing murder. Now apply it to other constant-crisis situations. Flight control-towers, airplanes, filled with people, might in the future be vulnerable as well. Entire planes full of innocent passengers could be lost in mid-air collisions, or ground collisions in low-visibility weather. Traffic control systems in major cities are already online. Corrupting them might cause redlight/greenlight problems, resulting in deaths by car wreck. Or perhaps it just causes a huge traffic jam, and all those in an ambulance, or needing one, are lost due to this virus.
As silly as this article seems, and as smug as the attitude of some posts I've read here, you can't always protect against all virii 100% of the time. There's always going to be something new and clever enough to take advantage of a weakness in the software.
Currently, computer viruses are not a capital offence, but once they start resulting in the loss of human life, and guilt is established, I say let the writer fry/hang/burn/choke/etc... at that point they have just become a premeditated murderer, no different than a bomber.
If I were them, I'd take a blanket storage approach to power. Use extremely efficient power drains, coupled with a battery for storage of energy. Then they can harness it in multiple ways: solar (during the day), kinetic (from movement), wind (small portable turbines in a windy environment, or over the shoulder while walking), and water (when camped/resting near a river or stream--you could even use the same turbine you use for wind power).
You wouldn't need to power a city off this stuff, just keep a continual charge building, and add perhaps a max of one-pound of weight for the turbine. Most of the time these special components would not be needed, and any time they aren't used, they can recharge...
Am I missing anything here? Is there some reason the Armed Forces aren't doing this? Or are they?
Shock Jocks are controlled by the FCC.
The FCC is controlled by the Supreme Court, which is controlled Bavarian Illuminati.
RIAA is controlled by Cthulhu.
RIAA with the assistance of Cthulhu will attempt to control the FCC... and they're bidding tons of megabucks.
"It's a classic bell curve - low margin = high sales and high margin = low sales, but in between is the sweet spot where item profit x sales yields that largest value."
Yes, the old Supply vs. Demand cross is often used as the determining factor in establishing price, but is unfortunately already debunked, along with many of Keynes other ideas. The Keynesian economic philosophy is still heavily used, but the fact is it just does not apply to the real world.
Bear the following in mind:
Not everyone has internet access, thus, not everyone has access to file-sharing.
This market is also divided into those who have access to those who have access to friends who can obtain and burn them a copy of the software, and those who do not.
The remaining users are basically forced to obtain their software from a store. They can either wait for it to hit a major discount (such as Half Price Books) or buy it at the premium.
Of those that have access to pirated software, some will not opt to use it, because of either ethical reasons, or fear of being caught. Then you have the people like me who might try the software for free, and then delete it if I'm not then willing to go buy a legit copy.
So there you are. An entire market of people who are willing to buy software, if the price is right.
Now add to that Games are a luxury. Unlike Office-type products, where a business needs them to survive, a game is simply a form of risky entertainment. Risky, because the game might not work, or it may just not be fun.
So what does one pay for the average luxury? Just about everyone has $10 to spare. They will blow that much to watch a movie, eat a meal at a restaurant, go bowling, play a few rounds of pool, grab a beer after work, or any number of relatively cheap activities. They are affordable luxuries and provide the buyer a reliably good time for their money.
However, $50(the average price for a new computer game) is a lot more daunting. Most people are going to see the price tag, and then evaluate whether or not it's worth shelling out that much for what might very well be a bad entertainment investment. If you knew that you could have a great time doing something else with $50, vs. staring at a box and dubious screenshots, with nothing but the description of the product on the back to guide you, most people will choose the former. Even if they'd rather choose the latter, plunking down $50 just might not be possible.
$10, on the other hand, amounts to very little loss if the game is not worth it, and almost everyone has $10 available within a pay period. For every one person that is willing to shell out $50 for a game that they've heard was pretty good, there are ten who would have paid $10 with little or no prompting. That's $100 vs. $50.
Now the reason the "market research" leaves the price at $50 is that they assume, wrongly IMHO, that their audience is relatively small, and the work will be pirated out enough to reduce profits. After all, dropping the price to $40 appeared to gain them little attention. $30 probably a tiny bit more, but still not enough to make a difference. But drop the price of a game to a very reasonable $10, and they may very well see the number of games sold skyrocket.
Now, I could be wrong. I very well could be, but as far as I've observed, they are using a Keynesian model for their pricing, and are basing their buying demographic off of a significantly smaller base than they could attain with a lower price.
"maybe there ought to be more severe repurcussions if someone innocent is charged."
This is where my legal knowledge gets hazy... but I think that if someone were sued by RIAA, then were proven innocent/exonerated/failed to be convicted, then they in turn could file a countersuit to RIAA for liable/slander/defamation of character/etc...
Of course that works out great in theory. Sad fact is RIAA has deep enough pockets to be able to tie it up in court long enough that the accuser goes broke with legal fees. The court system works both ways, but always on the side of the defense.
Well, at least then it might cut down on the number of people who sing/whistle/hum when they REALLY SHOULDN'T...
I'd almost welcome something like that to be rid of the constant noise pollution of tone-deaf people who don't believe me when I point it out...almost.
"Is the RIAA going to be allowed to practically steal from these people? They're doing the exact same as the accused (innocent until proven guilty) by suing people who can't afford to fight it..."
No, it's not the same. RIAA is taking advantage of a very expensive and cumbersome legal system which places the burden of proof on the accuser. Regardless of guilt, if one is truly innocent, this can, the majority of the time, be proven. Additionally, anyone who's ever watched a cop movie should know the miranda act "blahblah...if you cannot afford an attourney, one will be provided". If one is truly innocent, there shouldn't be a lot of extra fees to produce the appearance of innocence, because the proof is all there in the form of IPs, and soft-copy on the related hard-drive, as well as server logs. It will cost them a lot more to make the person appear guilty if they have done absolutely nothing wrong.
And if the person is guilty, then it's their fault for committing a crime they cannot afford to pay.
Okay, so the people being sued can't afford the legal fees. However, they wouldn't be sued if they weren't performing illegal file sharing. The people they are going after aren't sharing private files, they are distributing, for free, the hard work of others. This is the risk that one takes when using file-sharing, and those users accepted that when they began the swapping. The companies are probably not going after Joe User who downloads a couple of tracks to see if he likes the music on an album before buying it. They are more likely going after large-scale file distributers. People who have hundreds of songs, movies, games, and other copywrited works. They left their server on too long, and got caught. I'd feel no more sympathy than I would for a pawn shop that got busted for fencing stolen goods.
Now before the hate replies come in, I should mention that I'm all for file-sharing. I think RIAA are a bunch of corrupt bastages who overcharge for their products and services, and underpay the real talent--the entertainers.
I think game design companies charge way too much for a product, which is not neccesarily a corruption, but a misunderstanding of market forces. They feel they have to correct for piracy by charging $50/game, when in fact, there would be a lot more copies sold if they offered the same product for half. But then, that's been said for years.
I think the movie industry...is still quite fair. They churn out movies, $5-8 is a reasonable price to pay for a couple of hours of entertainment. If one does not like what they watch, then at most, an hour's minimum wage is lost. If it happens repeatedly, then they should take advantage of the local library.
Does this mean I'm anti-piracy? No. If you got something for free, and you enjoyed it, then you should then pay for it. Because in America, votes are determined by dollars, not by voices. If you vote (aka "buy") a legit copy of that game/CD/movie that you loved, then you have just voted for more of the same genre/artist/director to be produced. Same goes for everything. Feel free to sample, if you feel you need to. But if you like it, and continue to use it, you have an ethical obligation to buy.
That said, free sampling aside, piracy and distribution of copywrited material is still illegal, and those who participate in it take that risk willingly. The piper may be a total arsehead (read: RIAA), but that doesn't mean they don't have legal right in this matter.
" Also with this post it it does scare me to read how familair the descriptions sound. The mood swings, even the Nymphomania part. same goes for some other reply's. I feel dumb for not seeing it for eleven months."
Nonsense! Don't feel dumb. It's always easier to see things in retrospect a lot clearer than it is while it's happening. Hence the saying, "Hindsight is 20/20".
Now I feel compelled to point out that mood swings and sexual deviance (nymph/fridge) are also symptoms of other mental imbalances. Bipolar Disorder, for instance, is almost typified by these two symptoms. There's no quick and dirty way to determine what someone has. It requires one who is well-educated in psychiatry, and even they often need several sessions to determine what is wrong (unless the doctor in question is just a pill-dispensing Dr. Feelgood, in which case, he'll have one "figured out" in under 5 minutes and a nice perscription handy).
I would encourage anyone who suspects themself or someone close to them of having a real mental disorder to see a doctor. A big advantage to this is also sifting through genuine cases, and drama-queens/kings who want a new affliction to append to themselves.
Hmmm... fair enough. Rather than churn out 3 responses to the the ones posted, I'll simply admit that:
I never bothered reading a MacOS manual. I never really needed one. It was intuitive enough. (DOS, on the other hand, I read the hell out of).
I didn't hang around "stupid" computer users... I didn't even know any at the time. Closest I came to them were lamers who wasted BBS time posting stuff like "OZZIE RULEZ!!!" over and over and over.
As for the HP OS... well, that's not one I was into...
So I do admit to ignorance on the part of those three things. But I still feel like calling "Windows" a generic term at that point is a bit liberal with the word "generic".
"Kleenex" is a generic term made generic after a very long time of use. Pretty much any facial tissue is now called a "Kleenex" whether the Kleenex company made it or not. From little kids, to old people, this is the term I most often hear. I almost never hear someone say "give me a tissue". They say "give me a Kleenex".
In many places in the southern U.S., the word "coke" is used generically. "What kind of cokes do you have?" often doesn't refer to the selection between Classic, New Coke, Diet, etc..., it means "What kinds of Soda/Pop do you have?" Now it's widespread enough to be an acceptable question in the South, but I still wouldn't quite say that "coke", in and of itself is a generic term.
So, would you be willing to state, in total honesty, that "Windows", back in 1985 was used as generically as the word "Kleenex" is in present day? That everyone and their cousin referred to it as such?
If you are familiar with the southern U.S., would you say that it was used, in 1985, more frequently as a generic term than "coke" is/was?
There is a big difference between a widely-used term, and a generic term. I would classify the above use of the word "coke" as a widely-used term, but not a generic one, because most people refer to it as a soda, or a pop. Those are generic terms.
In 1985, I still contest that this was not a term that the majority of people used in a generic fashion, to refer to their operating system. Heck, even when I was supporting MS Windows 95 back in...'97(?), people still referred to their O/S as "Microwave 95". If you mentioned Windows, they asked what you were talking about. This was in 1997.
It's easy to look back 20 years at documentation like user manuals and memos, but that doesn't define a generic term. A generic term is created by common conversation, and is used by the majority of people. Perhaps the word "window" was in use in certain situations on certain machines, but in this timeframe, 1985, I still remain unconvinced that the majority of people referred to their Operating System as a "Window", or that use of their interface was "Windowing".
"Bill Gates takes a look at the increase in Internet users. Shortly afterward, memo to all of Microsoft: Windows 95 must be Internet-ready."
Oh, come on... that's like saying "George Lucas took a look at the increase in movie-goers, so he made movies." You might as well accuse him of buying a real nice house, because he saw other rich people buying houses. Making his O/S internet-ready was simply a good business decision. It wasn't copying anyone.
"I know anything pro-MS posted here is unpopular, but put it this way...
would the OS have been named Lindows if it wasn't for Windows?"
I'm inclined to agree, and though I don't know enough personally about the case, but from what I can tell so far:
Windows was definitly not a generic term in 1985. Heck. DOS was closer to being a generic name than Windows. Back then, Windows wasn't even popular enough to be known to most end-users. Despite Lindows' claim that "strong evidence establishing the generic use of the terms "windows" and "windowing" during the time Microsoft first began using them in 1983 and 1984" I was quite heavily into all 3 major OS's at the time (DOS, Mac, Commodore/Amiga) and Windows absolutely was not used nearly enough to be a generic term. Societally, it was just some vague concept of an idiot-friendly OS, and those it would affect most were not real keen on the transition from DOS.
Their claim that "Microsoft, from 1990 to 1994, continued to use the term "windowing environments' to poll consumers..." also holds very little water, as I answered these polls. They said WINDOWS environment. Not Windowing. Additionally, I don't see how referring to their particular brand of platform makes it a generic term. If you were a restaurant owner for McDonald's, and you asked your customers how well they enjoyed the overall McDonald's environment, or McDonald's experience, this would not make it a generic term. It simply means you are clarifying your brand for an otherwise stupid customer.
If you poke the bear (read: Microsoft) then expect it to suddenly get very interested in poking you back. Linux had their own thing going, and MS, while not happy about not being the only O/S, has not, to my knowledge, made a Lynux-type product. (correct me if I'm wrong). Lindows should have expected this reaction for piggybacking off MS's success.
However, there's also the following to consider:
From what I have been lead to understand, (note the disclaimer so I'm not sued) Microsoft stole their OS idea from Apple, whom I believe, stole it from Xerox. They should just accept that there is nothing original in literature or programming anymore, and it's time to allow someone else to steal the torch.
Lindows is the name of the COMPANY, not the O/S. Linspire is the name of the O/S, and bears no resemblence to Windows. Nor does Lindows bear any resemblence to the word Microsoft.
Even if Lindows is exonerated from all charges, Microsoft will simply buy them out if neccesary, just to make the point that they should not have poked the bear.
Yes, L0phtCrack has special character substitutions. I never once claimed that made it uncrackable. I believe I said that it increases the time it takes to crack (adding additional permutations to the password). Used alone, it doesn't work. Used in tandom with required password changes, and a minimum length, it can act as a deterrant.
Obviously these areas were tongue-in-cheek. However one cannot argue with results. When the carrot doesn't work (and I've NEVER seen the carrot work), then it's time to try the stick. If someone calls you out at the office, recruit them. It's not that hard.
Yes, they are tools, and they require training to use properly. But I would hope that the IT person in charge of password policy implementation has enough training to know what the results mean in a LANGuard scan (not to mention the various warning and info messages provided by the software a la' nice graphic HTML). I would also assume that at least someone in the department knows about ports and IP addresses, or how to look them up in the case of YAPS (Yet Another Port Scanner). In any event, these suggestions were not so that the admin can crack his own site, but see what would be immediately obvious to anyone running the appropriate scripts, and allow him/her opportunity to do something about it beforehand.
Slashdot Mirror
"In the short- and medium-term, the question is what kind of access middle-class and upper-class people have. There seems to be some obsession with getting illiterate farmers technology that the average person in wealthy countries doesn't have, but to my mind that's far less relevant than the overall level of computer use and access." I agree, on a number of levels. IMHO, an illiterate goat-rancher in Fillintheblankistan earning less than $1 a day really has a lot less reason to be awarded government funds to browse the internet than, say, a voucher-student who is earning their way through school with high grades. This doesn't mean I don't think the goat-rancher should have the -right- to browse the net, but rather that if someone wants a freebie, they should be earning it in some way, or proving that they are putting that freebie to good productive use. So, perhaps if the goat-herder could show he was using the internet priviledges for agricultural or business research purposes, he could continue to gain free access. However, since he's illiterate I'm pretty sure he'll probably just be browsing for pr0n.
"A single, dirt-cheap cyber-cafe provides far less access than 50 expensive, well-maintained ones..."
This one I'm afraid I have to disagree with. The Speakeasy Cafe, in Seattle, WA was a dirt-cheap cyber-cafe. It provided great, fast access at a fraction of what other places charged, along with dialup services, coffee, beer, live bands, and you could even smoke!!! It was my personal favorite social hub in downtown.
Then suddenly the owners noticed how popular the place was, turned it into the Starbucks of internet cafe's. You couldn't smoke, no live music, and now they offer crummy broadband and domain hosting. Which is a shame, because it used to be such a nice place. Anyway, personal experience and all...
Okay, once again, I'm failing to see the benefit the article claims.
How exactly does open-source code make for a more secure government? It would seem to me that giving the source-code to your encryption away, that you are practically begging others to learn how to hack it. At least proprietary software has a tiny measure of defense. It would also spread your possible leak-sources from the responsibility of one entity, the corporation that made it, to pretty much the entire world.
I believe, in the interests of National Defense, it would be best to have any sort of security source code until very tight lock and key.
Am I wrong here? Can someone tell me why?
Actually, I heard it on NPR earlier this year. I'm afraid I can't be more specific than this, as it happened more than two days ago, and my long term memory is always fuzzy. But according to the story on NPR, such is the case.
Oi! 2 responses.
1.) Hence the use of the word "supposedly". I never said it was absolute.
2.) I think it could possibly be done, but they'd have to involve the Time Scoop of Rassilon, which I think was destroyed at some point.
Rather than answer each individual reply, I'll just do a blanket one.
Oops, then. My bad. I was thinking of copyrights vs. patents. Obviously I misunderstood. My post was not intended as a troll, but rather a defense of the wrong idea. I remain unconvinced that patents are a bad thing, but I was unfortunately defending them while thinking "copyright".
Okay, how is the loss of a software patent a Good Thing(tm) in a free-market economy? I'd really like someone to explain this to me, because it sounds supsiciously like a big load of fresh steaming compost. Honestly now. Explain how it is beneficial for your creation to not be protected against theft by competitors? How does it encourage the market to grow and expand, when businesses suddenly decide to pursue more protected interests?
Do you honestly think the computer software market grew because of John Q. Coder in his living room? No! Sure, John Q. may have produced a higher quality software, but his marketing and distribution were limited strictly to his personal resources. The only reason there is a multi-billion dollar market in the software industry right now is because of the very giants you are ranting against. Don't like Microsoft? Tough. There's a very good chance that they are the reason that either you, or someone close to you even has their job right now.
Look, if someone's political views go the line of Communism, that's all well and good. You can go live in China, where you will be told what software you are allowed to use, and when, and god help you if you make the mistake of complaining about governmental policy there. But if you're going to live in the capitalist world, you have to grow up and accept the fact that sometimes a company you personally don't like still has a right to exist, and has just as much right to protect its interests as the underdog.
Nah, the equivolent of Star Wars without Darth Vader would have been if they had remove The Master from Dr. Who. The Daleks, while a powerful force en masse, were individually unable to overcome even a tweed jacket draped hastily over them. The equivolent of Star Trek without the Klingons would probably be the best equivolent.
Not entirely true, but I see your point. However, the estate holders of Charlie Chaplain's old films, for instance, are not releasing the silent versions of many of his famous movies to DVD, only the ones with actual sound, voices, etc. This is because they feel that it holds closest to his own aspirations, as Chaplain was a huge advocate of sound in movies. Though there would be a sizeable market for the silent ones, the family wants to hold on to the original artist's ideal. Granted I think this bites, as I like the silent versions better in the same way I think a black and white photograph requires more talent than colour photos, but that's my personal opinion, and not his vision. Not that this remotely applies to Dr. Who and Daleks, but in response to your comment, my reply is "Perhaps often, they do only consider money, but sometimes that's better than considering only the artist's vision. It gives it no room to grow or be remembered properly, it only limits us to the creator's own interpretation."
Considering XML probably has a shelf life of only a few more years before the next bigger and better thing comes along, maybe they could take that software (and admin maintenance) and put it into something a bit more effective, like a green roof.
- Pirates! (2004) - It's not out yet, but will hopefully be at the end of this year. For those unfamiliar with it, it's a revamped version of Sid Meiyer's Pirates! Also, Pirate Hunter Tortuga would be a good game in the interim.
- Civilization III - Any of this series would be good, but IMHO, Civ3 has been the best so far.
- Axis & Allies - Every-body...wants to rule the world... The board game was great.
- Oregon Trail - I believe they've made a new version of this game, but it was pretty good on the old macs.
- Colonization - I think this was also a Sid Meiyer...
Ehhh... come to think of it... pretty much any game by Sid Meiyer is a great idea for schools to use...-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
Take a good, hard look at where the world is going in terms of networking everything, and every network interlaced. Today, when a virus strikes, a virus loses a corporation lots of money. (sarcasm) But that's okay, because they're The Man, and we all hate The Man. It's not like it did anyone any harm, right? The Man just didn't get to buy another Learjet that year. (/sarcasm)
But seriously, I don't believe an economic crime demands a lethal punishment. Yet. Why? Because preventatives, insurance, investment, and policy (wise business decisions) can all decrease the effects of these crimes.
However, take into account Hospitals. As more medical equipment comes online, and has to be administered via network, medical care becomes more automated by computer. Medical Files are already on vulnerable networks. As a rule, most hospitals are understaffed, overworked, and in a constant state of emergency. So what happens when a virus brings down an entire hospital's networks for the day? People die. Perhaps the virus only corrupts here and there, unnoticeably. Suddenly medical info is incorrect, or unavailable in a time of crisis during an operation. Someone dies. Perhaps, further down the road, processes (such as medication, or life support) become networked, and a virus brings those systems down, or corrupts the system enough to cause a problem.
That's the most obvious way of a virus writer committing murder. Now apply it to other constant-crisis situations. Flight control-towers, airplanes, filled with people, might in the future be vulnerable as well. Entire planes full of innocent passengers could be lost in mid-air collisions, or ground collisions in low-visibility weather. Traffic control systems in major cities are already online. Corrupting them might cause redlight/greenlight problems, resulting in deaths by car wreck. Or perhaps it just causes a huge traffic jam, and all those in an ambulance, or needing one, are lost due to this virus.
As silly as this article seems, and as smug as the attitude of some posts I've read here, you can't always protect against all virii 100% of the time. There's always going to be something new and clever enough to take advantage of a weakness in the software.
Currently, computer viruses are not a capital offence, but once they start resulting in the loss of human life, and guilt is established, I say let the writer fry/hang/burn/choke/etc... at that point they have just become a premeditated murderer, no different than a bomber.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
If I were them, I'd take a blanket storage approach to power. Use extremely efficient power drains, coupled with a battery for storage of energy. Then they can harness it in multiple ways: solar (during the day), kinetic (from movement), wind (small portable turbines in a windy environment, or over the shoulder while walking), and water (when camped/resting near a river or stream--you could even use the same turbine you use for wind power).
You wouldn't need to power a city off this stuff, just keep a continual charge building, and add perhaps a max of one-pound of weight for the turbine. Most of the time these special components would not be needed, and any time they aren't used, they can recharge...
Am I missing anything here? Is there some reason the Armed Forces aren't doing this? Or are they?
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
Shock Jocks are controlled by the FCC.
...let's hope to God they roll an 11 or 12.
The FCC is controlled by the Supreme Court, which is controlled Bavarian Illuminati.
RIAA is controlled by Cthulhu.
RIAA with the assistance of Cthulhu will attempt to control the FCC... and they're bidding tons of megabucks.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
Yes, the old Supply vs. Demand cross is often used as the determining factor in establishing price, but is unfortunately already debunked, along with many of Keynes other ideas. The Keynesian economic philosophy is still heavily used, but the fact is it just does not apply to the real world.
Bear the following in mind:
- Not everyone has internet access, thus, not everyone has access to file-sharing.
- This market is also divided into those who have access to those who have access to friends who can obtain and burn them a copy of the software, and those who do not.
- The remaining users are basically forced to obtain their software from a store. They can either wait for it to hit a major discount (such as Half Price Books) or buy it at the premium.
- Of those that have access to pirated software, some will not opt to use it, because of either ethical reasons, or fear of being caught. Then you have the people like me who might try the software for free, and then delete it if I'm not then willing to go buy a legit copy.
So there you are. An entire market of people who are willing to buy software, if the price is right.Now add to that Games are a luxury. Unlike Office-type products, where a business needs them to survive, a game is simply a form of risky entertainment. Risky, because the game might not work, or it may just not be fun.
So what does one pay for the average luxury? Just about everyone has $10 to spare. They will blow that much to watch a movie, eat a meal at a restaurant, go bowling, play a few rounds of pool, grab a beer after work, or any number of relatively cheap activities. They are affordable luxuries and provide the buyer a reliably good time for their money.
However, $50(the average price for a new computer game) is a lot more daunting. Most people are going to see the price tag, and then evaluate whether or not it's worth shelling out that much for what might very well be a bad entertainment investment. If you knew that you could have a great time doing something else with $50, vs. staring at a box and dubious screenshots, with nothing but the description of the product on the back to guide you, most people will choose the former. Even if they'd rather choose the latter, plunking down $50 just might not be possible.
$10, on the other hand, amounts to very little loss if the game is not worth it, and almost everyone has $10 available within a pay period. For every one person that is willing to shell out $50 for a game that they've heard was pretty good, there are ten who would have paid $10 with little or no prompting. That's $100 vs. $50.
Now the reason the "market research" leaves the price at $50 is that they assume, wrongly IMHO, that their audience is relatively small, and the work will be pirated out enough to reduce profits. After all, dropping the price to $40 appeared to gain them little attention. $30 probably a tiny bit more, but still not enough to make a difference. But drop the price of a game to a very reasonable $10, and they may very well see the number of games sold skyrocket.
Now, I could be wrong. I very well could be, but as far as I've observed, they are using a Keynesian model for their pricing, and are basing their buying demographic off of a significantly smaller base than they could attain with a lower price.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
"maybe there ought to be more severe repurcussions if someone innocent is charged."
This is where my legal knowledge gets hazy... but I think that if someone were sued by RIAA, then were proven innocent/exonerated/failed to be convicted, then they in turn could file a countersuit to RIAA for liable/slander/defamation of character/etc...
Of course that works out great in theory. Sad fact is RIAA has deep enough pockets to be able to tie it up in court long enough that the accuser goes broke with legal fees. The court system works both ways, but always on the side of the defense.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
Aw-crud... sorry about that... I got interrupted mid-sentance and neglected to proofread my comment enough before posting.
It should have read "However, they wouldn't be sued if there wasn't an IP address performing illegal file sharing linked to them."
My apologies for the mistake.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
Well, at least then it might cut down on the number of people who sing/whistle/hum when they REALLY SHOULDN'T...
I'd almost welcome something like that to be rid of the constant noise pollution of tone-deaf people who don't believe me when I point it out...almost.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
"Is the RIAA going to be allowed to practically steal from these people? They're doing the exact same as the accused (innocent until proven guilty) by suing people who can't afford to fight it..."
No, it's not the same. RIAA is taking advantage of a very expensive and cumbersome legal system which places the burden of proof on the accuser. Regardless of guilt, if one is truly innocent, this can, the majority of the time, be proven. Additionally, anyone who's ever watched a cop movie should know the miranda act "blahblah...if you cannot afford an attourney, one will be provided". If one is truly innocent, there shouldn't be a lot of extra fees to produce the appearance of innocence, because the proof is all there in the form of IPs, and soft-copy on the related hard-drive, as well as server logs. It will cost them a lot more to make the person appear guilty if they have done absolutely nothing wrong.
And if the person is guilty, then it's their fault for committing a crime they cannot afford to pay.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
Okay, so the people being sued can't afford the legal fees. However, they wouldn't be sued if they weren't performing illegal file sharing. The people they are going after aren't sharing private files, they are distributing, for free, the hard work of others. This is the risk that one takes when using file-sharing, and those users accepted that when they began the swapping. The companies are probably not going after Joe User who downloads a couple of tracks to see if he likes the music on an album before buying it. They are more likely going after large-scale file distributers. People who have hundreds of songs, movies, games, and other copywrited works. They left their server on too long, and got caught. I'd feel no more sympathy than I would for a pawn shop that got busted for fencing stolen goods.
Now before the hate replies come in, I should mention that I'm all for file-sharing. I think RIAA are a bunch of corrupt bastages who overcharge for their products and services, and underpay the real talent--the entertainers.
I think game design companies charge way too much for a product, which is not neccesarily a corruption, but a misunderstanding of market forces. They feel they have to correct for piracy by charging $50/game, when in fact, there would be a lot more copies sold if they offered the same product for half. But then, that's been said for years.
I think the movie industry...is still quite fair. They churn out movies, $5-8 is a reasonable price to pay for a couple of hours of entertainment. If one does not like what they watch, then at most, an hour's minimum wage is lost. If it happens repeatedly, then they should take advantage of the local library.
Does this mean I'm anti-piracy? No. If you got something for free, and you enjoyed it, then you should then pay for it. Because in America, votes are determined by dollars, not by voices. If you vote (aka "buy") a legit copy of that game/CD/movie that you loved, then you have just voted for more of the same genre/artist/director to be produced. Same goes for everything. Feel free to sample, if you feel you need to. But if you like it, and continue to use it, you have an ethical obligation to buy.
That said, free sampling aside, piracy and distribution of copywrited material is still illegal, and those who participate in it take that risk willingly. The piper may be a total arsehead (read: RIAA), but that doesn't mean they don't have legal right in this matter.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
" Also with this post it it does scare me to read how familair the descriptions sound. The mood swings, even the Nymphomania part. same goes for some other reply's. I feel dumb for not seeing it for eleven months."
Nonsense! Don't feel dumb. It's always easier to see things in retrospect a lot clearer than it is while it's happening. Hence the saying, "Hindsight is 20/20".
Now I feel compelled to point out that mood swings and sexual deviance (nymph/fridge) are also symptoms of other mental imbalances. Bipolar Disorder, for instance, is almost typified by these two symptoms. There's no quick and dirty way to determine what someone has. It requires one who is well-educated in psychiatry, and even they often need several sessions to determine what is wrong (unless the doctor in question is just a pill-dispensing Dr. Feelgood, in which case, he'll have one "figured out" in under 5 minutes and a nice perscription handy).
I would encourage anyone who suspects themself or someone close to them of having a real mental disorder to see a doctor. A big advantage to this is also sifting through genuine cases, and drama-queens/kings who want a new affliction to append to themselves.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
So I do admit to ignorance on the part of those three things. But I still feel like calling "Windows" a generic term at that point is a bit liberal with the word "generic".
"Kleenex" is a generic term made generic after a very long time of use. Pretty much any facial tissue is now called a "Kleenex" whether the Kleenex company made it or not. From little kids, to old people, this is the term I most often hear. I almost never hear someone say "give me a tissue". They say "give me a Kleenex".
In many places in the southern U.S., the word "coke" is used generically. "What kind of cokes do you have?" often doesn't refer to the selection between Classic, New Coke, Diet, etc..., it means "What kinds of Soda/Pop do you have?" Now it's widespread enough to be an acceptable question in the South, but I still wouldn't quite say that "coke", in and of itself is a generic term.
So, would you be willing to state, in total honesty, that "Windows", back in 1985 was used as generically as the word "Kleenex" is in present day? That everyone and their cousin referred to it as such?
If you are familiar with the southern U.S., would you say that it was used, in 1985, more frequently as a generic term than "coke" is/was?
There is a big difference between a widely-used term, and a generic term. I would classify the above use of the word "coke" as a widely-used term, but not a generic one, because most people refer to it as a soda, or a pop. Those are generic terms.
In 1985, I still contest that this was not a term that the majority of people used in a generic fashion, to refer to their operating system. Heck, even when I was supporting MS Windows 95 back in...'97(?), people still referred to their O/S as "Microwave 95". If you mentioned Windows, they asked what you were talking about. This was in 1997.
It's easy to look back 20 years at documentation like user manuals and memos, but that doesn't define a generic term. A generic term is created by common conversation, and is used by the majority of people. Perhaps the word "window" was in use in certain situations on certain machines, but in this timeframe, 1985, I still remain unconvinced that the majority of people referred to their Operating System as a "Window", or that use of their interface was "Windowing".
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
"Bill Gates takes a look at the increase in Internet users. Shortly afterward, memo to all of Microsoft: Windows 95 must be Internet-ready."
Oh, come on... that's like saying "George Lucas took a look at the increase in movie-goers, so he made movies." You might as well accuse him of buying a real nice house, because he saw other rich people buying houses. Making his O/S internet-ready was simply a good business decision. It wasn't copying anyone.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
I'm inclined to agree, and though I don't know enough personally about the case, but from what I can tell so far:
- Windows was definitly not a generic term in 1985. Heck. DOS was closer to being a generic name than Windows. Back then, Windows wasn't even popular enough to be known to most end-users. Despite Lindows' claim that "strong evidence establishing the generic use of the terms "windows" and "windowing" during the time Microsoft first began using them in 1983 and 1984" I was quite heavily into all 3 major OS's at the time (DOS, Mac, Commodore/Amiga) and Windows absolutely was not used nearly enough to be a generic term. Societally, it was just some vague concept of an idiot-friendly OS, and those it would affect most were not real keen on the transition from DOS.
- Lindows' OS looks an awful lot like Windows
- Lindows, phonetically, sounds a lot like Windows.
- Their claim that "Microsoft, from 1990 to 1994, continued to use the term "windowing environments' to poll consumers..." also holds very little water, as I answered these polls. They said WINDOWS environment. Not Windowing. Additionally, I don't see how referring to their particular brand of platform makes it a generic term. If you were a restaurant owner for McDonald's, and you asked your customers how well they enjoyed the overall McDonald's environment, or McDonald's experience, this would not make it a generic term. It simply means you are clarifying your brand for an otherwise stupid customer.
However, there's also the following to consider:If you poke the bear (read: Microsoft) then expect it to suddenly get very interested in poking you back. Linux had their own thing going, and MS, while not happy about not being the only O/S, has not, to my knowledge, made a Lynux-type product. (correct me if I'm wrong). Lindows should have expected this reaction for piggybacking off MS's success.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
- Yes, L0phtCrack has special character substitutions. I never once claimed that made it uncrackable. I believe I said that it increases the time it takes to crack (adding additional permutations to the password). Used alone, it doesn't work. Used in tandom with required password changes, and a minimum length, it can act as a deterrant.
- Obviously these areas were tongue-in-cheek. However one cannot argue with results. When the carrot doesn't work (and I've NEVER seen the carrot work), then it's time to try the stick. If someone calls you out at the office, recruit them. It's not that hard.
- Yes, they are tools, and they require training to use properly. But I would hope that the IT person in charge of password policy implementation has enough training to know what the results mean in a LANGuard scan (not to mention the various warning and info messages provided by the software a la' nice graphic HTML). I would also assume that at least someone in the department knows about ports and IP addresses, or how to look them up in the case of YAPS (Yet Another Port Scanner). In any event, these suggestions were not so that the admin can crack his own site, but see what would be immediately obvious to anyone running the appropriate scripts, and allow him/her opportunity to do something about it beforehand.
I do hope this cleared a few things up for you.-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.