No, it's most emphatically not, at least in Georgia, and in most states as well.
Here's the code (your state may vary, but most states are very similar):
40-6-40.b: Upon all roadways, any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
Note the reference to the "normal speed of traffic," not "the speed limit." Also, more specifically to these idiots who decide to be do-gooders and prevent people from passing them:
40-6-40.d: No two vehicles shall impede the normal flow of traffic by traveling side by side at the same time while in adjacent lanes, provided that this Code section shall not be construed to prevent vehicles traveling side by side in adjacent lanes because of congested traffic conditions.
So if you (and by "you," I'm talking to the reader of this post, not the parent, who I think agrees with me) deliberately travel in a passing lane to impede traffic, you're breaking the law just as badly as anyone who might be speeding. (At least in Georgia; and as I said, most states have very similar laws.) So if you do it, stop being an idiot and doing something just as bad and dangerous as the people you're trying to stop.
You rights are not being violated if you are prevented from doing seventy in a sixty.
Yes, they are. You, I assume, are not a cop. Therefore, it is not your job to enforce the law. If I'm doing something that poses an immediate danger to you, you have the right to try to stop me using reasonable measures. Me driving seventy miles per hour in a sixty mile per hour zone is not inherently posing and immediate danger to you.
Under these circumstances, and any cop will tell you this if you ask them, your responsibility is at most limited to notifying the appropriate authorities. So if you want to take down my tag number or call the police and report me (after pulling off the side of the road to safely talk on your cell phone, of course), go right ahead. In fact, let me know how the police react when you take a list of tag numbers and matching speeds to the police office or call to inform them that a blue Oldsmobile is going seventy in a sixty.
But taking any action to stop me is dangerous, it's stupid, and it will get you in a hell of a lot more trouble than it will me if you cause a wreck while doing it.
can they maybe pick up TV channels?... that would be a bonus.
Not when the MPAA finds out about it. Then they'll either force you to watch commercials or else send you C&D letters to make you stop seeing. Remember, bionic eyes clearly induce people to use them for watching copyright-violated material.
Canadians, who are a little smarter, will just assume that everyone's bionic eyes are used to watch infringing material and will charge a tax on bionic eye hardware and pay the industry a cut.
If we're lucky, maybe DVD Jon will still be around to save us from FairWatch and WatchForSure.
I've been in a couple of retail stores north of Atlanta recently, and they had pallets of PS3's. I still haven't gotten a Wii yet, though, because no one seems to be able to keep them in stock, even though it's two months after they came out and they've produced like ten times as many.:-(
It's pretty obvious to me which company has a right to be proud and which one should be doing some serous soul-searching.
Encouraging the use of associates links simply fuels the desire to evolve a response, story or otherwise imaginative tale to include another referral link.
So? Isn't that kind of the point of the comments section of Slashdot, to give responses?
It diminishes the content here because the post is crafted with something to gain.
I disagree. If someone posts something informative and it also happens to net them a few cents here and there, what's wrong with that? I doubt that anyone is going to seriously try to make their fortune off of referral links on Slashdot. (Well, other than Slashdot itself, through its B&N referral links, which everyone seems to oddly live with being okay—nice double standard!)
The way I see it, people post referral links here as a way of saying, "Here's something that is relevant to the conversation and perhaps useful to you." I still fail to see what's so evil about that. Besides, if a story, response, or otherwise imaginative tale gets submitted for the obvious purpose of generating income through an associates link, it quickly gets modsmacked. Such is the beauty of the Slashdot Way: It all works out.
If you (collectively, not you personally) are really that concerned about the quality of posts on Slashdot, there are many, many, many more productive places to start than making sure that Amazon.com gets an extra $0.92.
Why are people so averse to using the associates link? Stoolpigeon has saved you some time and effort in going out to Amazon.com and looking the book up yourself. He is referring you to the book, and as such, deserves at least a miniscule amount of credit for it via the associates link.
Besides, it's not like you're going to pay more for the book if you buy it using his referral link than if you don't. If you click on his link, it's $23.09. If you look it up yourself, it's $23.09. If you use a non-referral link such as the one posted in your message, it's $23.09. The only difference is who gets $0.92 (4%) of that $23.09: Stoolpigeon of Amazon.com. While I don't have anything against Amazon.com, I figure they're making lots of money already, and it certainly wouldn't hurt them to fork over that $0.92 to someone for helping to sell products from their site.
I have a little-used associates account at Amazon.com. I know from experience that if you order something using a referral link, all that person knows is that the item was ordered, which is kind of necessary in order to know how much you've got coming to you. It doesn't tell you who ordered it, where they live, what their credit card number is, or anything else except that x number of item y's were bought.
So given the choice of clicking on Stoolpigeon's referral link or stang's non-referral link, click on the referral link. Not doing so is really pretty stupid and needlessly spiteful. Or else someone please explain to me why you think that Amazon.com deserves that extra $0.92 more than Stoolpigeon, especially when if it hadn't been for Stoolpigeon, you wouldn't have paid Amazon.com the other $22.17.
So you're going to see a UAC prompt on older programs
Can you not read at all, or are you simply dense and choosing not to?
I'll say it again, in big bold italicized letters: I'm not talking about third-party software here, I'm talking about the operating system itself!
If my copy of Widget 7.0 from a couple of years ago didn't work, that would be one thing. But again, I'm not talking about this kind of situation. I'm talking about simple operations within the operating system itself, such as changing my desktop background, renaming a file, copying text out of IE7 (which, as we all know, is an integrated part of the operating system now), and so on.
I would rather have the occasional extra security prompt instead of nothing at all.
First of all, it's not an "occasional extra security prompt." It's a constant annoyance that irritates you every time you try to do anything. Second of all, if you simply disagree and really do find it a mere "occasional extra security prompt," then more power to you, but I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that the vast majority of Vista users will disagree. I'd love to see some followup surveys about how many people have disabled UAC (thus completely defeating a huge chunk of Vista's so-called security) or have tuned them out to the point that they're completely useless.
I was entering a forum post into a text box. I wanted to save off the text to copy into a reply to another post, so I highlighted some text in the box and hit Ctrl-C. I got a prompt that said that Internet Explorer was attempting to access my clipboard, did I want to allow it to? I hit yes. Then when I actually pasted the text into the reply, I got the same prompt again.
It wasn't the standard UAC dialog box, so it might very well have been IE7. Though I've run IE7 on XP, and I've never gotten that prompt, so I'm assuming that it's either Vista or the Vista/IE7 combo that sets it off. In any event, I just stood there for a few seconds staring at my screen, then started yelling—literally yelling—"Are you kidding me!!?"
I can't really elaborate much more than that, because I've already gone back to XP. If I ever do try Vista again (I did make a partition image before blowing it away), I'll grab a screenshot and blog it or something. If you look around, I strongly suspect a bunch of other people already have.
I'm sorry, exactly where did I say that it was acceptable in OS X or Linux? Seriously, point it out, because I honestly don't remember saying anything like that.
Since you brought it up, though, yes, Linux could definitely use some work in this area. I also get tired of sudo password prompts for doing some basic system configuration and maintenance tasks, especially stuff that only applies to my account, not the OS as a whole. If you want me to jump on the bandwagon of having less stuff requiring admin access in Linux, count me in. I can't speak for OS X because I've never used it.
However, in defense of Linux, Vista is much worse. I've never had a prompt pop up in Linux that expressed concern because I was copying text from my browser to the clipboard. In Vista, I did. It may sound petty and silly, but it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. The truth is, though, that I was constantly being prompted to do stuff that had nothing even remotely to do with system configuration or administration. Stupid stuff like renaming a file that was nowhere near a system directory. Stupid stuff like running a program that doesn't even come close to touching kernel code. Stupid stuff like... Well, you get the idea, I'm not going to sit here and list every stupid prompt I got.
So am I Microsoft-bashing? Yeah, I suppose I am. But it's not because I have an ax to grind with the company or because I think the alternative is perfect, it's because this particular product truly sucks ass. Yes, I know that there are zealots out there who would complain no matter how well Vista might have worked, but if you think I'm one of them or that's why I posted my message, you're barking up the wrong tree.
That's the thing. Most of the prompts I was getting was not from software trying to do stuff, it was from normal operating system operations such as copying/moving/renaming/deleting files. Not OS files, but my own documents in my user directory. Not programmatically, but from me personally interacting with Explorer to manage my data. Stuff like changing the layout of my Start menu. Stuff like changing my desktop background. Stuff like copying a line of text from a web page in IE7 to paste in a document.
There's a much, much bigger hole than any programmer could possibly exploit: The annoyance factor.
Last night, I restored my old XP partition after figuring I'd give Vista a shot for just a couple of days. You know, just to experience it myself instead of taking other people's word for what it's like.
The theme of Vista seems to be simple: Annoy the hell out of he end user. You want to run an application, is that okay? You want to copy a file, is that okay? You want to change your desktop background, is that okay? You want to copy text from IE7, is that okay? You want to delete an old text file, is that okay? You want to paste text into a form field in IE7, is that okay? The list goes on and on. Almost every action in Vista is actually compose of two separate actions: the one you want to do, and the confirmation to do it.
After getting Windows Vista installed, I took an hour or so to configure my personal settings and install a couple of applications. I had to acknowledge somewhere between 50 and 100 dialog boxes asking me if it was okay to do what I was doing. No, I'm not exaggerating.
Now, I'm a very experienced computer user, and I've worked for over a decade supporting PCs, servers, networks, and so on. Yes, I know, I could disable UAC if I want to, but that kind of defeats the point of Vista's so-called beefed up security.
Even I became so numb to clicking OK in two short days that I wouldn't think twice about it. You want to move that shortcut on your start menu, is that okay? You want to install the Pwnzjoo virus, is that okay? You want to send your bank account numbers to Nigeria, is that okay? Yes, yes, yes, dammit!
If Microsoft wants to really get serious about security, they have to get it through their heads that it's not about locking everything down and popping up prompt after prompt after prompt to the user. It's about being smart, letting the user do normal things without interference or interruption, and having the level of alerts match the danger of what's being done.
As it is, Vista cries wolf so often that when the real wolves show up, I'd be surprised if any user, newbie or guru, listens.
Well, therein lies the crux of the problem. Apple says it's not practical (or even possible) to adequately DRM music and license the technology to others, because that necessarily means sharing "secrets," and the more people that you share the secret with, the harder it is to keep the secret. That makes sense to me.
The music industry and its players are saying, in essence, "You're a smart company, figure out a way to share the secret with others, and yet still keep the secret." That doesn't make sense to me. Witness what's happened to CSS. When the secret was let out, it was impossible to retroactively say, "Okay, everyone that was using that secret, start using this one instead..."
The thing that really chaps my hide is that let's say that Apple says, "Okay, let's share the secret," and lo and behold, the secret gets out and Apple's DRM is irrevocably cracked open. Who here thinks that the RIAA and the major industry players will say, "Well, darn, I guess that's the risk we ran by telling Apple to do something they warned us was impractical."
Here's an MSNBC article with just a few more details. It has the RIAA's response:
Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs challenged major record labels to strip copying restrictions from music sold online, but their trade group fired back Wednesday, suggesting the company should open up its anti-piracy technology to rivals instead.
Doing so, argued Mitch Bainwol, chairman and chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, would eliminate technology hurdles that prevent music fans from buying songs at Apple's iTunes Music Store and playing them on devices other than the iPod.
"We have no doubt that a technology company as sophisticated and smart as Apple could work with the music community to make that happen," Bainwol said in a statement.
You're not like most people, then. Witness the iPod. Is it the cheapest mp3 player on the market? No. Is it the best? Not really. What it is, though, is easy to use and customer-focused.
what you'll be downloading will be *exactly* the same, no matter where you get it.
Riiiiight. That's why diffs of movies you download from different online providers will all be exactly the same, right?
There are lots of things that are different. The DRM. The player. The quality of the video and audio transcoding. The reliability of the service. The ease of finding what you're looking for. The number of movies they have. The ability to play on hardware you have. The ability of the service to answer questions you might have. The amount of hassle you tolerate for using a service (do they sell your e-mail address to spammers? etc.). Countless other things that make up the end-user experience for using a service.
I won't judge you if your only criterion for evaluating a service to use is cost. If you want to use a crappy service because it's cheap, be my guest. Like I said, though, you're in a small minority when it comes to services like this.
I get so tired about hearing how wal-mart supposedly abuses their employees.
Then we agree, because so do I. Although my solution isn't to ignore it happening and rationalizing that it's okay because people obviously work there, it's for us to try to get them to stop.
While people love to rant about the items Wal-Mart sells how do these same people explain the grocery sections? Same brands as the big supermarkets at significantly lower prices. Heck I can find similar names in their department side of the operation as I can at the mall and save money.
The same way I explain their stores. If you don't mind digging through misplaced stuff to find what you're looking for, putting up with aisles that are three feet wide, standing in line for half an hour because there are only two cashiers, and don't have any questions about what you're shopping for because the people that work there ignore you and have no clue what the hell they're selling just so you can save a few cents on your Charmin, then Wal-Mart is a great place to shop.
I have too many incidents of unhappiness at Wal-Mart to recount them all here. The two that stick out in my mind were when I needed a few simple items one Saturday afternoon before Christmas several years ago. I walked in and saw two--two!--cashiers open, and people lined up too far to see. I would have been in the store at least an hour. I walked out, drove ten miles to the Target down the street, and haven't been to a Wal-Mart since. The other time was when I sprained my ankle and needed an ice pack and Ace bandage. Wal-Mart was the closest store to me (a mile or so away), so I drove down there, hobbled in, and hobbled back to the pharmacy section. A worker there who was stocking shelves literally watched me as I painfully limped up to her and said that my ankle was sprained, and I would appreciate it if she'd help me find the ice packs and Ace bandages. She pointed away and said, "I think it's two aisles over, maybe three," turned her back to me, and went back to putting the stuff on the shelves.
So yeah, you could say that I seriously doubt Wal-Mart will be able to do anything like run an online movie business competently, and even if the movies are, as I said, dirt cheap, I won't be using it.
Customer service isn't the real issue, its ease of use, selection, and then cost which will make or break their service.
Newsflash, ease of use and selection are part of customer service. Cost will be a factor, but I seriously down that the target market (no pun intended) for this service will be looking for movies that cost $2.95 to download instead of $2.99. They'll be looking for the stuff that Wal-Mart truly sucks at, stuff like, as you mentioned, ease of use and selection.
Why should Wal-Mart get into this? Easy, because it has such a low cost of operation. Pay for bandwidth, the servers, and that is a lot less than a B&M existance.
Well hell then, let's all get into the movie download business, since it's so cheap! You're forgetting the cost of developing and maintaining the software, marketing, and guaranteeing a certain level of service and uptime. These kinds of things are not cheap. If Wal-Mart takes their typical attitude of trying to do it on the cheap, you'll have software that is excruciatingly painful to use, lots of system down time due to back-end hardware and software issues, non-existent customer service and support for the mass of e-mail complaints that will pour in, and other such problems.
So Wal-Mart gives us a new option. The more the merrier. The free market is a much better decider than other approaches. If Wal-Mart succeeds then they will do so because they deserve it. If they fail, that also is their fault as well.
I don't propose anything different. I'm with you on this, let them compete in the ma
Will the company be able to outmaneuver Apple and Netflix the same way it has done with other retailers in the past?
Not if Wal-Mart takes the same attitude with online movie downloads as they do with their stores.
Wal-Mart has always been about one thing and one thing only: Dirt cheap stuff. They might as well make it their slogan: "Wal-Mart, where you get Dirt Cheap Stuff(TM)." You can see this attitude in their stores with cluttered aisles, severe lack of cashiers, poor treatment of employees, etc. People have unfortunately been willing to put with this this because, well, they want dirt cheap stuff.
The online movie download business isn't about dirt cheap, it's about customer service. The people who use it aren't poor; they're at least middle-incomers with computers and high-speed access to the Internet. If Wal-Mart tries to go dirt cheap on this service, they're going to get eaten alive in this space.
The summary left out the most important tidbit of information in this case: The police did not have a warrant for their actions.
If the police have reasonable cause to suspect that someone is up to no good and they go through due process to get a warrant, I have no problem with them using GPS as a tool in their arsenal of crime-fighting weapons.
However, I have a major issue with the police, with no reason to think I might be doing something wrong and no warrant to back it up, putting a GPS receiver on my car just in case I do do something wrong.
The judge did warn against 'wholesale surveillance' of the population, though.
The judge in this case was a complete and total idiot. He can warn all he wants to, but he just set a legal precedent that says they can if they want to. There is now absolutely nothing stopping the police from GPS-bugging anyone at any time for any reason, or even with a complete lack of a reason. Who here thinks that even though the police can GPS-bug people without a warrant that they simply will choose not to do so because the right thing to do, in the spirit of the Constitution, is to get a warrant first?
Yeah, I don't either. If you give the government that kind of power, it has shown throughout history—including many incidents in recent U.S. history—that it will not only use it, but push it even further.
If I recall correctly, the rationale behind the original decision was that police can follow people the old-fashioned way—a stakeout—without a warrant or probable cause, and that GPS-bugging them is legally no different, because people should have no reasonable expectation of privacy while driving on public roads.
Well, I'm sorry, I vehemently disagree. The resources required to conduct a stakeout demand that the police don't just do it all willy-nilly for no reason, and anyone who expects to be electronically tracked when there is no reason or cause to do so is an idiot. I know it, you know it, the police know it, this judge knows it, but with the swing of a gavel, he just legalized the excruciatingly stupid idea that you don't have any privacy on the roads. Some people think that talking about Big Brother watching us is an exaggeration, but when I read about stuff like this, it's really hard to see much of a difference.
If there's any justice to be had from this, this idiot judge's decision will be overturned at some point.
That's the most insightful post I've seen in these comments.
They were both wrong, plain and simple. It just so happens, though, that Lycos has the power to do what it wants. This lady is paying for her mistake with missing e-mails. Lycos might pay for its mistake in a tarnished customer service reputation. I don't really see either as being more right than the other, and it looks like they are both going to just have to suck up the consequences.
It's too bad, really, considering that both had the opportunity to set things right before it got to this point. Oh well, maybe there will be some lessons learned by both of them from this incident.
Hold my beer while I pull every LED off my monitors, KB, Mice, Computers, Cell Phones, etc to make sure they aren't really bombs.
There are places where it's normal to find LEDs, wires, and electronic components, such as, oh, say, on monitors, keyboards, mice, computers, cell phones, and so on. And then there are places where it's not normal to find electronics, such as on unrecognizable devices attached to bridges, and on subway walls.
There is normally no need to be unduly alarmed about the former. Like it or not, there is a need to be alarmed about the latter, at least to the point of taking prudent measures to check it out as they did.
And it's not like we haven't seen an innocent marketing ploy turned into a security concern before, though I think this one is way more stupid. At some point, these idiotic marketing companies have to figure out that at some point, someone needs to ask the question, "Is this something that could reasonably cause security problems for people who don't look at the world as one huge billboard?"
Software is inherently copyable. Sometimes there are reasons when software is copied and used that I used say is OK.
First of all, no, it's not. Have you been living under a rock? The past ten years have seen copying software getting more and more difficult.
Second of all, what does the "copyability" of software have to do with anything? I hope that you're not like the idiot that posted above that implied that since software can be copied, that's basically saying that it's the companies encouraging of piracy?
Third of all, when exactly do you think it is okay for software to be copied contrary to the EULA? Why is it so difficult to simply... Not?
I'm just saying in the real world people try whatever works, without regard to what some smart fella sat down and wrote in a law somewhere.
You're not talking about "trying whatever works," you're talking about deliberately leeching other people's hard work without compensating them in any way for their time or effort.
Let's say you agree to mow someone's yard for fifty bucks and even go so far as to draw up a legal contract with all of the terms and conditions. You go out there and spend hours perfectly manicuring the lawn. When you're done, the person says, "Wow, great job! My god, you even trimmed the driveway, the place looks fantastic! Oh, and by the way, I'm not going to pay you." Justifiably mad, you take them to court and sue for your $50.
Then next thing you know, some raving asshole is posting comments on Slashdot saying that, "The lawn service non-payers have the right to fight back... It's that simple."
I wonder, if it was written in law... [blah blah blah stupid rambling]
You're an idiot. I suppose that if it's written into law that you must not shoot your mother in the head (like, um, it is?) that you'd go ahead and blow her head off it since all laws are so evil, right? If your tiny little brain can't figure out the difference between good laws (like the kind that say that people actually have to pay you—gasp!—for stuff you are selling) and bad laws, then I don't see any point in arguing any further. Like I said, you're an idiot, and there's no point.
Maybe in your world, you try whatever you want whenever you want. Having worked for all sorts of businesses both small and large (two people all the way up to dozens of thousands), we in the real world do not simply "try whatever works." We evaluate software, and if we want to use it, we pay the people for it or do whatever the license otherwise demands, or we uninstall it and do something else. In any event, we in the real world obey the law. If we don't like the law, guess what. We obey it anyway. If the law is so screwed up that we find it intolerable, we lobby to change it by writing to our Congresscritters, supporting organizations such as the EFF, and so on. But even while we're doing that, in the real business world, we don't just pick and choose which laws we will and won't obey.
Now if you want to talk about our personal lives, then yeah, I've downloaded some movies and television shows now and then because I couldn't get them any other way. I'm no saint. But I also have bought tons of stuff on CD, DVD, iTunes, etc. whenever it is available because I believe that compensating people for their hard work is a Good Thing. That's also why I've donated to various FOSS efforts even though I really don't have to. And I've also tried out eval copies of commercial software that I've been interested in buying, and if I like the software, guess what... I buy it.
Everyone I associate with is the same way. The non-tech people I know don't want to bother figuring out how to crack software or where to get already cracked versions. The tech people I know are decent moral people who acknowledge the time and effort it takes to develop sophisticated software.
So again, rationalize all you want, but simply using software you want without abiding by the terms under which the author or publisher licenses it isn't legal, it isn't moral, it isn't your screwed up view of human nature, it's just you being an asshole, you giving the BSA ammunition it needs to convince the public that they should have more power than they should, you setting back the goals of the FOSS movement, and you being an asshole (which bears mentioning twice because you're such a huge one).
I've frequently found myself pirating a software initially and as I find more and more uses for it, and become dependent on it, I purchase a license. Is it proper?
Don't see something you want in that list? Call Microsoft. They're actually really good at working with businesses (and we are talking about businesses here) at getting them trials and evals of whatever they want.
Is it wrong?
Yes, it is. No stupid rationalizations, no bandwagons, no mitigating factors, no ifs, ands, or buts; it's wrong, plain and simple.
They stealthily encourages piracy and then demanded all pirated users pay.
That's bullshit. How exactly are they encouraging piracy? Seems to me that with all of this WGA shit that's coming down, they're bending over backwards to the point of screwing up honest customers' computers in trying to keep piracy under control. What an idiotic thing to say. What exactly do they have to do to convince you that they don't want you to pirate their software? Send men in sunglasses and black hats to your house to break down your door, check your computer, and break your legs if you've installed their software illegally?
Are you basically saying that having only rudimentary CD-Key verification, or even no verification at all, in previous versions of Windows is somehow encouraging piracy? That's basically saying that right or wrong, it doesn't matter if someone rapes a girl if she was dressed like she wanted it, and like I said, that's bullshit.
Or maybe you're saying that because Microsoft offers sweet deals to OEMs, schools, governments, and big customers that they're encouraging piracy. Guess what... That's bullshit too. Every software company of any decent size does that. It's called trying to sell your software, not asking people to illegally use your stuff. If I make widgets and I offer a volume discount on them, am I asking for people to steal them? No. Do widget pirates have a right to fight back if I try to keep them from stealing widgets? No.
And god knows that I am not a fan of Microsoft or the BSA, but when I read comments like yours, it's hard to not cheer for them. That arrogant smugness, unapologetically doing what you know is wrong, is exactly what makes them look reasonable and justified and what keeps companies and organizations like them in business.
It's people like you who completely undermine everything that people who contribute to FOSS projects stand for. If more people were like you, there'd be no need for things like Linux, OpenOffice.org, Firefox, The Gimp, or any other FOSS. If someone wants an office application, there's no need to look for a FOSS alternative; just pirate a copy of Microsoft Office. Don't use Linux, just pirate a copy of Windows.
You know, not to be a troll, but I really don't see what the big deal is. Regardless of whatever ethical problems one may have with Microsoft, if a business is using illegal copies of software, that company should be sued. Buying the appropriate licenses for software is one of the costs of doing business. If I wrote a piece of software the businesses wanted and I found out that it was being rampantly pirated, I'd be wanting to stick the BSA on them, too. I don't see why Microsoft should be held to a different standard.
If you're a business using Windows, budget for it and pay, for crying out loud. If you don't want to spend the money on Microsoft products, then use open source products instead, which have become very economically attractive and corporately viable replacements. But trying to have your cake and eat it too is just stupid.
Oh, and as a side note, not that this won't start happening in the US by any stretch of the imagination, but from TFA:
So far, Microsoft will use the new approach only in the UK, [UK Lincensing Programs Manager Ram] Dhaliwal said.
I dont mcare mouch about the pphone but i really want the resat of the features...
If you just want the full touchscreen iPod without the phone but a bigger drive (my particular desire), have patience. There's a rumor that they're going to release just that before the iPhone comes out.
I'm waiting for this. Although the device looks cool, I'm on Verizon and I'm perfectly happy. If I could use it on Verizon's service, I might consider getting one, but I don't want one badly enough to switch providers, period.
(Are you listening, Apple? Why did you have to go and screw up a perfectly cool device with an exclusivity agreement with Cingular?)
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's most emphatically not, at least in Georgia, and in most states as well.
Here's the code (your state may vary, but most states are very similar):
Note the reference to the "normal speed of traffic," not "the speed limit." Also, more specifically to these idiots who decide to be do-gooders and prevent people from passing them:
So if you (and by "you," I'm talking to the reader of this post, not the parent, who I think agrees with me) deliberately travel in a passing lane to impede traffic, you're breaking the law just as badly as anyone who might be speeding. (At least in Georgia; and as I said, most states have very similar laws.) So if you do it, stop being an idiot and doing something just as bad and dangerous as the people you're trying to stop.
Yes, they are. You, I assume, are not a cop. Therefore, it is not your job to enforce the law. If I'm doing something that poses an immediate danger to you, you have the right to try to stop me using reasonable measures. Me driving seventy miles per hour in a sixty mile per hour zone is not inherently posing and immediate danger to you.
Under these circumstances, and any cop will tell you this if you ask them, your responsibility is at most limited to notifying the appropriate authorities. So if you want to take down my tag number or call the police and report me (after pulling off the side of the road to safely talk on your cell phone, of course), go right ahead. In fact, let me know how the police react when you take a list of tag numbers and matching speeds to the police office or call to inform them that a blue Oldsmobile is going seventy in a sixty.
But taking any action to stop me is dangerous, it's stupid, and it will get you in a hell of a lot more trouble than it will me if you cause a wreck while doing it.
That's a big "no," if ever I heard one.
Not when the MPAA finds out about it. Then they'll either force you to watch commercials or else send you C&D letters to make you stop seeing. Remember, bionic eyes clearly induce people to use them for watching copyright-violated material.
Canadians, who are a little smarter, will just assume that everyone's bionic eyes are used to watch infringing material and will charge a tax on bionic eye hardware and pay the industry a cut.
If we're lucky, maybe DVD Jon will still be around to save us from FairWatch and WatchForSure.
It's modded Funny? How about Depressingly True?
I've been in a couple of retail stores north of Atlanta recently, and they had pallets of PS3's. I still haven't gotten a Wii yet, though, because no one seems to be able to keep them in stock, even though it's two months after they came out and they've produced like ten times as many. :-(
It's pretty obvious to me which company has a right to be proud and which one should be doing some serous soul-searching.
So? Isn't that kind of the point of the comments section of Slashdot, to give responses?
I disagree. If someone posts something informative and it also happens to net them a few cents here and there, what's wrong with that? I doubt that anyone is going to seriously try to make their fortune off of referral links on Slashdot. (Well, other than Slashdot itself, through its B&N referral links, which everyone seems to oddly live with being okay—nice double standard!)
The way I see it, people post referral links here as a way of saying, "Here's something that is relevant to the conversation and perhaps useful to you." I still fail to see what's so evil about that. Besides, if a story, response, or otherwise imaginative tale gets submitted for the obvious purpose of generating income through an associates link, it quickly gets modsmacked. Such is the beauty of the Slashdot Way: It all works out.
If you (collectively, not you personally) are really that concerned about the quality of posts on Slashdot, there are many, many, many more productive places to start than making sure that Amazon.com gets an extra $0.92.
<petpeeve>
Why are people so averse to using the associates link? Stoolpigeon has saved you some time and effort in going out to Amazon.com and looking the book up yourself. He is referring you to the book, and as such, deserves at least a miniscule amount of credit for it via the associates link.
Besides, it's not like you're going to pay more for the book if you buy it using his referral link than if you don't. If you click on his link, it's $23.09. If you look it up yourself, it's $23.09. If you use a non-referral link such as the one posted in your message, it's $23.09. The only difference is who gets $0.92 (4%) of that $23.09: Stoolpigeon of Amazon.com. While I don't have anything against Amazon.com, I figure they're making lots of money already, and it certainly wouldn't hurt them to fork over that $0.92 to someone for helping to sell products from their site.
I have a little-used associates account at Amazon.com. I know from experience that if you order something using a referral link, all that person knows is that the item was ordered, which is kind of necessary in order to know how much you've got coming to you. It doesn't tell you who ordered it, where they live, what their credit card number is, or anything else except that x number of item y's were bought.
So given the choice of clicking on Stoolpigeon's referral link or stang's non-referral link, click on the referral link. Not doing so is really pretty stupid and needlessly spiteful. Or else someone please explain to me why you think that Amazon.com deserves that extra $0.92 more than Stoolpigeon, especially when if it hadn't been for Stoolpigeon, you wouldn't have paid Amazon.com the other $22.17.
</petpeeve>
Can you not read at all, or are you simply dense and choosing not to?
I'll say it again, in big bold italicized letters: I'm not talking about third-party software here, I'm talking about the operating system itself!
If my copy of Widget 7.0 from a couple of years ago didn't work, that would be one thing. But again, I'm not talking about this kind of situation. I'm talking about simple operations within the operating system itself, such as changing my desktop background, renaming a file, copying text out of IE7 (which, as we all know, is an integrated part of the operating system now), and so on.
First of all, it's not an "occasional extra security prompt." It's a constant annoyance that irritates you every time you try to do anything. Second of all, if you simply disagree and really do find it a mere "occasional extra security prompt," then more power to you, but I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that the vast majority of Vista users will disagree. I'd love to see some followup surveys about how many people have disabled UAC (thus completely defeating a huge chunk of Vista's so-called security) or have tuned them out to the point that they're completely useless.
I was entering a forum post into a text box. I wanted to save off the text to copy into a reply to another post, so I highlighted some text in the box and hit Ctrl-C. I got a prompt that said that Internet Explorer was attempting to access my clipboard, did I want to allow it to? I hit yes. Then when I actually pasted the text into the reply, I got the same prompt again.
It wasn't the standard UAC dialog box, so it might very well have been IE7. Though I've run IE7 on XP, and I've never gotten that prompt, so I'm assuming that it's either Vista or the Vista/IE7 combo that sets it off. In any event, I just stood there for a few seconds staring at my screen, then started yelling—literally yelling—"Are you kidding me!!?"
I can't really elaborate much more than that, because I've already gone back to XP. If I ever do try Vista again (I did make a partition image before blowing it away), I'll grab a screenshot and blog it or something. If you look around, I strongly suspect a bunch of other people already have.
I'm sorry, exactly where did I say that it was acceptable in OS X or Linux? Seriously, point it out, because I honestly don't remember saying anything like that.
Since you brought it up, though, yes, Linux could definitely use some work in this area. I also get tired of sudo password prompts for doing some basic system configuration and maintenance tasks, especially stuff that only applies to my account, not the OS as a whole. If you want me to jump on the bandwagon of having less stuff requiring admin access in Linux, count me in. I can't speak for OS X because I've never used it.
However, in defense of Linux, Vista is much worse. I've never had a prompt pop up in Linux that expressed concern because I was copying text from my browser to the clipboard. In Vista, I did. It may sound petty and silly, but it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. The truth is, though, that I was constantly being prompted to do stuff that had nothing even remotely to do with system configuration or administration. Stupid stuff like renaming a file that was nowhere near a system directory. Stupid stuff like running a program that doesn't even come close to touching kernel code. Stupid stuff like... Well, you get the idea, I'm not going to sit here and list every stupid prompt I got.
So am I Microsoft-bashing? Yeah, I suppose I am. But it's not because I have an ax to grind with the company or because I think the alternative is perfect, it's because this particular product truly sucks ass. Yes, I know that there are zealots out there who would complain no matter how well Vista might have worked, but if you think I'm one of them or that's why I posted my message, you're barking up the wrong tree.
(Have you tried Vista yet?)
That's the thing. Most of the prompts I was getting was not from software trying to do stuff, it was from normal operating system operations such as copying/moving/renaming/deleting files. Not OS files, but my own documents in my user directory. Not programmatically, but from me personally interacting with Explorer to manage my data. Stuff like changing the layout of my Start menu. Stuff like changing my desktop background. Stuff like copying a line of text from a web page in IE7 to paste in a document.
There's a much, much bigger hole than any programmer could possibly exploit: The annoyance factor.
Last night, I restored my old XP partition after figuring I'd give Vista a shot for just a couple of days. You know, just to experience it myself instead of taking other people's word for what it's like.
The theme of Vista seems to be simple: Annoy the hell out of he end user. You want to run an application, is that okay? You want to copy a file, is that okay? You want to change your desktop background, is that okay? You want to copy text from IE7, is that okay? You want to delete an old text file, is that okay? You want to paste text into a form field in IE7, is that okay? The list goes on and on. Almost every action in Vista is actually compose of two separate actions: the one you want to do, and the confirmation to do it.
After getting Windows Vista installed, I took an hour or so to configure my personal settings and install a couple of applications. I had to acknowledge somewhere between 50 and 100 dialog boxes asking me if it was okay to do what I was doing. No, I'm not exaggerating.
Now, I'm a very experienced computer user, and I've worked for over a decade supporting PCs, servers, networks, and so on. Yes, I know, I could disable UAC if I want to, but that kind of defeats the point of Vista's so-called beefed up security.
Even I became so numb to clicking OK in two short days that I wouldn't think twice about it. You want to move that shortcut on your start menu, is that okay? You want to install the Pwnzjoo virus, is that okay? You want to send your bank account numbers to Nigeria, is that okay? Yes, yes, yes, dammit!
If Microsoft wants to really get serious about security, they have to get it through their heads that it's not about locking everything down and popping up prompt after prompt after prompt to the user. It's about being smart, letting the user do normal things without interference or interruption, and having the level of alerts match the danger of what's being done.
As it is, Vista cries wolf so often that when the real wolves show up, I'd be surprised if any user, newbie or guru, listens.
Well, therein lies the crux of the problem. Apple says it's not practical (or even possible) to adequately DRM music and license the technology to others, because that necessarily means sharing "secrets," and the more people that you share the secret with, the harder it is to keep the secret. That makes sense to me.
The music industry and its players are saying, in essence, "You're a smart company, figure out a way to share the secret with others, and yet still keep the secret." That doesn't make sense to me. Witness what's happened to CSS. When the secret was let out, it was impossible to retroactively say, "Okay, everyone that was using that secret, start using this one instead..."
The thing that really chaps my hide is that let's say that Apple says, "Okay, let's share the secret," and lo and behold, the secret gets out and Apple's DRM is irrevocably cracked open. Who here thinks that the RIAA and the major industry players will say, "Well, darn, I guess that's the risk we ran by telling Apple to do something they warned us was impractical."
Yeah, I don't either.
Here's an MSNBC article with just a few more details. It has the RIAA's response:
You're not like most people, then. Witness the iPod. Is it the cheapest mp3 player on the market? No. Is it the best? Not really. What it is, though, is easy to use and customer-focused.
Riiiiight. That's why diffs of movies you download from different online providers will all be exactly the same, right?
There are lots of things that are different. The DRM. The player. The quality of the video and audio transcoding. The reliability of the service. The ease of finding what you're looking for. The number of movies they have. The ability to play on hardware you have. The ability of the service to answer questions you might have. The amount of hassle you tolerate for using a service (do they sell your e-mail address to spammers? etc.). Countless other things that make up the end-user experience for using a service.
I won't judge you if your only criterion for evaluating a service to use is cost. If you want to use a crappy service because it's cheap, be my guest. Like I said, though, you're in a small minority when it comes to services like this.
Then we agree, because so do I. Although my solution isn't to ignore it happening and rationalizing that it's okay because people obviously work there, it's for us to try to get them to stop.
The same way I explain their stores. If you don't mind digging through misplaced stuff to find what you're looking for, putting up with aisles that are three feet wide, standing in line for half an hour because there are only two cashiers, and don't have any questions about what you're shopping for because the people that work there ignore you and have no clue what the hell they're selling just so you can save a few cents on your Charmin, then Wal-Mart is a great place to shop.
I have too many incidents of unhappiness at Wal-Mart to recount them all here. The two that stick out in my mind were when I needed a few simple items one Saturday afternoon before Christmas several years ago. I walked in and saw two--two!--cashiers open, and people lined up too far to see. I would have been in the store at least an hour. I walked out, drove ten miles to the Target down the street, and haven't been to a Wal-Mart since. The other time was when I sprained my ankle and needed an ice pack and Ace bandage. Wal-Mart was the closest store to me (a mile or so away), so I drove down there, hobbled in, and hobbled back to the pharmacy section. A worker there who was stocking shelves literally watched me as I painfully limped up to her and said that my ankle was sprained, and I would appreciate it if she'd help me find the ice packs and Ace bandages. She pointed away and said, "I think it's two aisles over, maybe three," turned her back to me, and went back to putting the stuff on the shelves.
So yeah, you could say that I seriously doubt Wal-Mart will be able to do anything like run an online movie business competently, and even if the movies are, as I said, dirt cheap, I won't be using it.
Newsflash, ease of use and selection are part of customer service. Cost will be a factor, but I seriously down that the target market (no pun intended) for this service will be looking for movies that cost $2.95 to download instead of $2.99. They'll be looking for the stuff that Wal-Mart truly sucks at, stuff like, as you mentioned, ease of use and selection.
Well hell then, let's all get into the movie download business, since it's so cheap! You're forgetting the cost of developing and maintaining the software, marketing, and guaranteeing a certain level of service and uptime. These kinds of things are not cheap. If Wal-Mart takes their typical attitude of trying to do it on the cheap, you'll have software that is excruciatingly painful to use, lots of system down time due to back-end hardware and software issues, non-existent customer service and support for the mass of e-mail complaints that will pour in, and other such problems.
I don't propose anything different. I'm with you on this, let them compete in the ma
Not if Wal-Mart takes the same attitude with online movie downloads as they do with their stores.
Wal-Mart has always been about one thing and one thing only: Dirt cheap stuff. They might as well make it their slogan: "Wal-Mart, where you get Dirt Cheap Stuff(TM)." You can see this attitude in their stores with cluttered aisles, severe lack of cashiers, poor treatment of employees, etc. People have unfortunately been willing to put with this this because, well, they want dirt cheap stuff.
The online movie download business isn't about dirt cheap, it's about customer service. The people who use it aren't poor; they're at least middle-incomers with computers and high-speed access to the Internet. If Wal-Mart tries to go dirt cheap on this service, they're going to get eaten alive in this space.
The summary left out the most important tidbit of information in this case: The police did not have a warrant for their actions.
If the police have reasonable cause to suspect that someone is up to no good and they go through due process to get a warrant, I have no problem with them using GPS as a tool in their arsenal of crime-fighting weapons.
However, I have a major issue with the police, with no reason to think I might be doing something wrong and no warrant to back it up, putting a GPS receiver on my car just in case I do do something wrong.
The judge in this case was a complete and total idiot. He can warn all he wants to, but he just set a legal precedent that says they can if they want to. There is now absolutely nothing stopping the police from GPS-bugging anyone at any time for any reason, or even with a complete lack of a reason. Who here thinks that even though the police can GPS-bug people without a warrant that they simply will choose not to do so because the right thing to do, in the spirit of the Constitution, is to get a warrant first?
Yeah, I don't either. If you give the government that kind of power, it has shown throughout history—including many incidents in recent U.S. history—that it will not only use it, but push it even further.
If I recall correctly, the rationale behind the original decision was that police can follow people the old-fashioned way—a stakeout—without a warrant or probable cause, and that GPS-bugging them is legally no different, because people should have no reasonable expectation of privacy while driving on public roads.
Well, I'm sorry, I vehemently disagree. The resources required to conduct a stakeout demand that the police don't just do it all willy-nilly for no reason, and anyone who expects to be electronically tracked when there is no reason or cause to do so is an idiot. I know it, you know it, the police know it, this judge knows it, but with the swing of a gavel, he just legalized the excruciatingly stupid idea that you don't have any privacy on the roads. Some people think that talking about Big Brother watching us is an exaggeration, but when I read about stuff like this, it's really hard to see much of a difference.
If there's any justice to be had from this, this idiot judge's decision will be overturned at some point.
That's the most insightful post I've seen in these comments.
They were both wrong, plain and simple. It just so happens, though, that Lycos has the power to do what it wants. This lady is paying for her mistake with missing e-mails. Lycos might pay for its mistake in a tarnished customer service reputation. I don't really see either as being more right than the other, and it looks like they are both going to just have to suck up the consequences.
It's too bad, really, considering that both had the opportunity to set things right before it got to this point. Oh well, maybe there will be some lessons learned by both of them from this incident.
(But probably not.)
There are places where it's normal to find LEDs, wires, and electronic components, such as, oh, say, on monitors, keyboards, mice, computers, cell phones, and so on. And then there are places where it's not normal to find electronics, such as on unrecognizable devices attached to bridges, and on subway walls.
There is normally no need to be unduly alarmed about the former. Like it or not, there is a need to be alarmed about the latter, at least to the point of taking prudent measures to check it out as they did.
And it's not like we haven't seen an innocent marketing ploy turned into a security concern before, though I think this one is way more stupid. At some point, these idiotic marketing companies have to figure out that at some point, someone needs to ask the question, "Is this something that could reasonably cause security problems for people who don't look at the world as one huge billboard?"
First of all, no, it's not. Have you been living under a rock? The past ten years have seen copying software getting more and more difficult.
Second of all, what does the "copyability" of software have to do with anything? I hope that you're not like the idiot that posted above that implied that since software can be copied, that's basically saying that it's the companies encouraging of piracy?
Third of all, when exactly do you think it is okay for software to be copied contrary to the EULA? Why is it so difficult to simply... Not?
You're not talking about "trying whatever works," you're talking about deliberately leeching other people's hard work without compensating them in any way for their time or effort.
Let's say you agree to mow someone's yard for fifty bucks and even go so far as to draw up a legal contract with all of the terms and conditions. You go out there and spend hours perfectly manicuring the lawn. When you're done, the person says, "Wow, great job! My god, you even trimmed the driveway, the place looks fantastic! Oh, and by the way, I'm not going to pay you." Justifiably mad, you take them to court and sue for your $50.
Then next thing you know, some raving asshole is posting comments on Slashdot saying that, "The lawn service non-payers have the right to fight back... It's that simple."
You're an idiot. I suppose that if it's written into law that you must not shoot your mother in the head (like, um, it is?) that you'd go ahead and blow her head off it since all laws are so evil, right? If your tiny little brain can't figure out the difference between good laws (like the kind that say that people actually have to pay you—gasp!—for stuff you are selling) and bad laws, then I don't see any point in arguing any further. Like I said, you're an idiot, and there's no point.
Maybe in your world, you try whatever you want whenever you want. Having worked for all sorts of businesses both small and large (two people all the way up to dozens of thousands), we in the real world do not simply "try whatever works." We evaluate software, and if we want to use it, we pay the people for it or do whatever the license otherwise demands, or we uninstall it and do something else. In any event, we in the real world obey the law. If we don't like the law, guess what. We obey it anyway. If the law is so screwed up that we find it intolerable, we lobby to change it by writing to our Congresscritters, supporting organizations such as the EFF, and so on. But even while we're doing that, in the real business world, we don't just pick and choose which laws we will and won't obey.
Now if you want to talk about our personal lives, then yeah, I've downloaded some movies and television shows now and then because I couldn't get them any other way. I'm no saint. But I also have bought tons of stuff on CD, DVD, iTunes, etc. whenever it is available because I believe that compensating people for their hard work is a Good Thing. That's also why I've donated to various FOSS efforts even though I really don't have to. And I've also tried out eval copies of commercial software that I've been interested in buying, and if I like the software, guess what... I buy it.
Everyone I associate with is the same way. The non-tech people I know don't want to bother figuring out how to crack software or where to get already cracked versions. The tech people I know are decent moral people who acknowledge the time and effort it takes to develop sophisticated software.
So again, rationalize all you want, but simply using software you want without abiding by the terms under which the author or publisher licenses it isn't legal, it isn't moral, it isn't your screwed up view of human nature, it's just you being an asshole, you giving the BSA ammunition it needs to convince the public that they should have more power than they should, you setting back the goals of the FOSS movement, and you being an asshole (which bears mentioning twice because you're such a huge one).
No. If you want to try out software from Microsoft, almost every product will allow you to in a perfectly legal manner. What do you want to try out? How about Microsoft Office 2007 Pro? Visio? What about Visual Studio Pro? Money? Or maybe you'd like to try out some entertainment software like Age of Empires III, Halo, or Zoo Tycoon?
Don't see something you want in that list? Call Microsoft. They're actually really good at working with businesses (and we are talking about businesses here) at getting them trials and evals of whatever they want.
Yes, it is. No stupid rationalizations, no bandwagons, no mitigating factors, no ifs, ands, or buts; it's wrong, plain and simple.
That's bullshit. How exactly are they encouraging piracy? Seems to me that with all of this WGA shit that's coming down, they're bending over backwards to the point of screwing up honest customers' computers in trying to keep piracy under control. What an idiotic thing to say. What exactly do they have to do to convince you that they don't want you to pirate their software? Send men in sunglasses and black hats to your house to break down your door, check your computer, and break your legs if you've installed their software illegally?
Are you basically saying that having only rudimentary CD-Key verification, or even no verification at all, in previous versions of Windows is somehow encouraging piracy? That's basically saying that right or wrong, it doesn't matter if someone rapes a girl if she was dressed like she wanted it, and like I said, that's bullshit.
Or maybe you're saying that because Microsoft offers sweet deals to OEMs, schools, governments, and big customers that they're encouraging piracy. Guess what... That's bullshit too. Every software company of any decent size does that. It's called trying to sell your software, not asking people to illegally use your stuff. If I make widgets and I offer a volume discount on them, am I asking for people to steal them? No. Do widget pirates have a right to fight back if I try to keep them from stealing widgets? No.
And god knows that I am not a fan of Microsoft or the BSA, but when I read comments like yours, it's hard to not cheer for them. That arrogant smugness, unapologetically doing what you know is wrong, is exactly what makes them look reasonable and justified and what keeps companies and organizations like them in business.
It's people like you who completely undermine everything that people who contribute to FOSS projects stand for. If more people were like you, there'd be no need for things like Linux, OpenOffice.org, Firefox, The Gimp, or any other FOSS. If someone wants an office application, there's no need to look for a FOSS alternative; just pirate a copy of Microsoft Office. Don't use Linux, just pirate a copy of Windows.
God, what a moron.
You know, not to be a troll, but I really don't see what the big deal is. Regardless of whatever ethical problems one may have with Microsoft, if a business is using illegal copies of software, that company should be sued. Buying the appropriate licenses for software is one of the costs of doing business. If I wrote a piece of software the businesses wanted and I found out that it was being rampantly pirated, I'd be wanting to stick the BSA on them, too. I don't see why Microsoft should be held to a different standard.
If you're a business using Windows, budget for it and pay, for crying out loud. If you don't want to spend the money on Microsoft products, then use open source products instead, which have become very economically attractive and corporately viable replacements. But trying to have your cake and eat it too is just stupid.
Oh, and as a side note, not that this won't start happening in the US by any stretch of the imagination, but from TFA:
If you just want the full touchscreen iPod without the phone but a bigger drive (my particular desire), have patience. There's a rumor that they're going to release just that before the iPhone comes out.
I'm waiting for this. Although the device looks cool, I'm on Verizon and I'm perfectly happy. If I could use it on Verizon's service, I might consider getting one, but I don't want one badly enough to switch providers, period.
(Are you listening, Apple? Why did you have to go and screw up a perfectly cool device with an exclusivity agreement with Cingular?)