Because while Microsoft has every right to disable their software, they have NO LEGAL RIGHT to turn my computer on or off. That is *MY* hardware. You turn it off without my permission and I will have you in court for unlawful trespass, unauthorized computer access, unauthorized use of property, and a whole slew of other Federal charges.
You'll be laughed out by the first judge to hear your case, too.
If MS has decided to disable Windows 98 because they no longer support it, then MS would likely have been in breach of contract and paying out the nose. However, the RCs were distributed with clear notice that the software would only function for so many days and not intended for production use. You gain no superior right to Windows by installing it on your home hardware.
In short, MS has every right to shutdown the RCs. If you don't like it, ask any/. reader to help you install a Linux distro.
What, a letter via registered mail was too expensive?
Registered mail is only necessary when you are trying to give someone notice. The RIAA already has notice of the order. From this point, it doesn't really matter how they try to contact them about collecitng. They could send messages to them via singing telegram.
There are provisions that can restrict what the big guy can do during discovery, but these mechanisms are rarely used, mainly because it is difficult to see what is and is not a decoy. Judges prefer to wait until it is clear, and that usually means at the end of the case. These are covered by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g). It seems to me, however, that the judge added a bit more, just because it was Microsoft.
Not even close. A prescriptive easement requires a significant period of time (much more than 2 years; 20 years is much more common), and usually must be open and hostile, so if the neighbor does not know you are using the network connection, you cannot claim an easement. If your neighbor has made a reasonable effort to exclude you, posted sign or no, you also cannot claim an easement.
All this is irrelevant, since I don't think any court would recognize usage of a neighbor's wireless network, secured or unsecured, as a prescriptive easement.
That table does only looks at total fatal crashes. There is no data on the total number of automobile accidents. I suspect that more people aren't dying in automobile accidents because automobiles are safer overall.
Cell phones started becoming more common in 1994, but so did SUVs. Those bigger vechicles are less likely to cause fatalities to their occupants (although not necessarily their victims).
Some of the unprotected networks were at cafes, hotels or other establishments that offer wireless hot spots to patrons. Other networks, like those at Starbucks, were protected.
The last time I checked, T-Mobile's service is not any more encrypted than a Netgear router taken right out of the box.
Likewise, a sign will probably not protect you from much, unless you're a business. Then you can use the sign to protect yourself from liability.
You study is extremely biased and must be discounted as such.
No record label is going to try and steer anyone towards the "obscure songs," but that doesn't matter. The current hit songs are, in the eyes of the record labels at least, undervalued. By asking (demanding?) that the priced be increased, they feel they can more accurately collect on what they've created. This may not be an accurate statement, but this is the reasoning the labels are using.
If they're smart (I'm talking s-m-r-t smart), they will consider a more variable pricing model, discounting the more obscure or less popular songs. This may not be where they're going, but I think it would help the smaller names gain at least a stronger cult following.
Of course, then you'd have to pay $1.49 for that song once it became a hit.
That an idea os "not obvious" is one of the tests the USPTO should be using to judge worthyness of a patent, along with being unique and novel.
It doesn't matter who's first to market on this one, it fails the test.
What I've noticed is that the average computer user wants a turn-key solution. They also want a solution that they are familiar with. Look at how many people are running Windows 98 still...
Open source projects, let's take Firefox as an example, are wonderful for the people who use the features contained therein. I love tabbed browsing. I love the extensions. Firefox is a wonderful product all around, but I take advantage of what makes it great.
On the other hand, I know for a fact that my mother, a very average computer user, is not interested in these features. She wants to get her email, read her online newspaper, and could care less about anything else.
I've learned over the years in IT that it's very difficult to convince people to change what software they're using. My philosophy has always been to let people use what works for them. I haven't used an MS product on my computers at home for years now, only because I don't need to. I love my Apple/Linux network at home. My mother will never use anything else but MS. She can do what she needs to do with MS products. There's no point in getting her to change.
From what I remember about FF, they made major changes to the program between several of the beta releases. Even when they finally released 1.0, there was a major change to the internal code and structure.
I'm pretty sure that this represents 'beta' development practices. It may have been good code and stable, but it was not nearly finished between 0.6 and 1.0.
This document is also 15 years old. Let's think about computing power available 15 years ago. Yes, there were computers more than powerful enough to do handle brute force decryption, not to mention more sophisiticated means. In terms of portability, however, there was nothing. Computing power has become so inexpensive and widespread now that more advanced forms of cryptography have (natrually) replaced the older, hand driven cyphers of old.
Let's also think about the types of encryption that were being used back then. The mathematics that it takes to drive many of these algorithms was simply not practical in 1990.
This document is serves more as a historical artifact now rather than a practial guide to decrypting like the government.
Let's face it, WiFi technology is still in it's infancy. When new technologies come to market, two things happen:
The suppliers of a technology will try to make as much money as possible from the technology.
The consumer of the technology will try and get the technology for as little as possible.
Take the T-Mobile hotspot, for example. If you plan on using it a lot (and that's a lot of time spent at Starbucks), you can get away with spending a mere $29.99 a month. If you're not so sure, the price jumps to $39.00 a month, but you're free to quit. The price will jump even higher if you move to a per day or per hour plan.
Now take many local public venues (e.g. libraries, coffee houses, etc.) Many of these places will offer free access for their patrons. We have become quite spoiled by these free hotspots (I know I have, and I will prefer one of these places any time).
If there are more and more of these public access points offered, we will find more and more that, because of competition and free market forces, the price of WiFi access will plummit, possibly to near-zero. We (the consumer) just need to keep at it. If the technology is not profitable for businesses, wifi may become relegated to the realm of "promotional offer" or "advertising gimmick."
It has been my experience that there are many users out there who simply don't care about having a high-end computer, or, if they do, they don't have any need for it. For example, I've seen people who have spent $3,000 on a high-end G5 tower, dual processor etc., and only ever use Safari and Mail. The Mini should be a perfect computer for these people, even out of the box.
Just my $.02.
Slashdot Mirror
Because while Microsoft has every right to disable their software, they have NO LEGAL RIGHT to turn my computer on or off. That is *MY* hardware. You turn it off without my permission and I will have you in court for unlawful trespass, unauthorized computer access, unauthorized use of property, and a whole slew of other Federal charges.
You'll be laughed out by the first judge to hear your case, too. If MS has decided to disable Windows 98 because they no longer support it, then MS would likely have been in breach of contract and paying out the nose. However, the RCs were distributed with clear notice that the software would only function for so many days and not intended for production use. You gain no superior right to Windows by installing it on your home hardware. In short, MS has every right to shutdown the RCs. If you don't like it, ask any /. reader to help you install a Linux distro.
What, a letter via registered mail was too expensive?
Registered mail is only necessary when you are trying to give someone notice. The RIAA already has notice of the order. From this point, it doesn't really matter how they try to contact them about collecitng. They could send messages to them via singing telegram.There are provisions that can restrict what the big guy can do during discovery, but these mechanisms are rarely used, mainly because it is difficult to see what is and is not a decoy. Judges prefer to wait until it is clear, and that usually means at the end of the case. These are covered by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g). It seems to me, however, that the judge added a bit more, just because it was Microsoft.
Not even close. A prescriptive easement requires a significant period of time (much more than 2 years; 20 years is much more common), and usually must be open and hostile, so if the neighbor does not know you are using the network connection, you cannot claim an easement. If your neighbor has made a reasonable effort to exclude you, posted sign or no, you also cannot claim an easement. All this is irrelevant, since I don't think any court would recognize usage of a neighbor's wireless network, secured or unsecured, as a prescriptive easement.
That table does only looks at total fatal crashes. There is no data on the total number of automobile accidents. I suspect that more people aren't dying in automobile accidents because automobiles are safer overall. Cell phones started becoming more common in 1994, but so did SUVs. Those bigger vechicles are less likely to cause fatalities to their occupants (although not necessarily their victims).
Georgetown frequently has power outages because the power lines are underground.
You study is extremely biased and must be discounted as such. No record label is going to try and steer anyone towards the "obscure songs," but that doesn't matter. The current hit songs are, in the eyes of the record labels at least, undervalued. By asking (demanding?) that the priced be increased, they feel they can more accurately collect on what they've created. This may not be an accurate statement, but this is the reasoning the labels are using. If they're smart (I'm talking s-m-r-t smart), they will consider a more variable pricing model, discounting the more obscure or less popular songs. This may not be where they're going, but I think it would help the smaller names gain at least a stronger cult following. Of course, then you'd have to pay $1.49 for that song once it became a hit.
That an idea os "not obvious" is one of the tests the USPTO should be using to judge worthyness of a patent, along with being unique and novel. It doesn't matter who's first to market on this one, it fails the test.
What I've noticed is that the average computer user wants a turn-key solution. They also want a solution that they are familiar with. Look at how many people are running Windows 98 still...
Open source projects, let's take Firefox as an example, are wonderful for the people who use the features contained therein. I love tabbed browsing. I love the extensions. Firefox is a wonderful product all around, but I take advantage of what makes it great.
On the other hand, I know for a fact that my mother, a very average computer user, is not interested in these features. She wants to get her email, read her online newspaper, and could care less about anything else.
I've learned over the years in IT that it's very difficult to convince people to change what software they're using. My philosophy has always been to let people use what works for them. I haven't used an MS product on my computers at home for years now, only because I don't need to. I love my Apple/Linux network at home. My mother will never use anything else but MS. She can do what she needs to do with MS products. There's no point in getting her to change.
Just my $0.02.
From what I remember about FF, they made major changes to the program between several of the beta releases. Even when they finally released 1.0, there was a major change to the internal code and structure. I'm pretty sure that this represents 'beta' development practices. It may have been good code and stable, but it was not nearly finished between 0.6 and 1.0.
This document is also 15 years old. Let's think about computing power available 15 years ago. Yes, there were computers more than powerful enough to do handle brute force decryption, not to mention more sophisiticated means. In terms of portability, however, there was nothing. Computing power has become so inexpensive and widespread now that more advanced forms of cryptography have (natrually) replaced the older, hand driven cyphers of old. Let's also think about the types of encryption that were being used back then. The mathematics that it takes to drive many of these algorithms was simply not practical in 1990. This document is serves more as a historical artifact now rather than a practial guide to decrypting like the government.
Take the T-Mobile hotspot, for example. If you plan on using it a lot (and that's a lot of time spent at Starbucks), you can get away with spending a mere $29.99 a month. If you're not so sure, the price jumps to $39.00 a month, but you're free to quit. The price will jump even higher if you move to a per day or per hour plan.
Now take many local public venues (e.g. libraries, coffee houses, etc.) Many of these places will offer free access for their patrons. We have become quite spoiled by these free hotspots (I know I have, and I will prefer one of these places any time).
If there are more and more of these public access points offered, we will find more and more that, because of competition and free market forces, the price of WiFi access will plummit, possibly to near-zero. We (the consumer) just need to keep at it. If the technology is not profitable for businesses, wifi may become relegated to the realm of "promotional offer" or "advertising gimmick."
It has been my experience that there are many users out there who simply don't care about having a high-end computer, or, if they do, they don't have any need for it. For example, I've seen people who have spent $3,000 on a high-end G5 tower, dual processor etc., and only ever use Safari and Mail. The Mini should be a perfect computer for these people, even out of the box. Just my $.02.
Wasn't the military war game part of the plot of that movie Toys?