I used to think that "software as a service" meant using F/OSS (like PHP) and giving service to it (which is a perfectly valid business model). When I learned the true meaning, I realized it's nothing more than "renting software" with another name. It's much worse when it's "renting software AND storage for your data":-/
There were three guys in prison... two muscular, bearded and looking really badass.
One of the ruffians asks the other: "So, what did you get prison for?" "I killed 10 people - cut their arms and legs with a pocket knife, just for the fun of it. You?" The other guy answers: "I caught my wife with another man. Burned the hell outta' them".
Then they stare at the third guy - a wimpy kid with glasses sitting in a corner. "Hey kid, what ya here for?"
The kid answers in a depressed tone: "I pirated stuff from the internet". The two ruffians gasp, back off and start sweating.
A guy is whining (to courts, but still whining) because some guys are whining about him? Someone please give him a Video tutorial on "how to plummet your sales" starring the SCO execs. Sheesh.
One of the things they're adding is a time-based cache for unused images. For example, if after 5 seconds an image isn't used, it's freed from memory. This alone gave them a huge memory boost, IIRC.
I agree. A few obvious questions: what is the actual performance deterioration curve, what is the efficiency after 5-10 kerosene burns and what are the disposal requirements (it has the dirty "C" word in so do not expect them to be accepted at the tip).
What I'm trying to establish here is just why it's Microsoft's responsibility to deal with these particular machines.
Let's assume that the govt bans a certain food-processing machine because it releases a toxic gas into the air, which produces cancer. Unfortunately, they found out after the machine became so popular that it became a necessity for people to live a decent life.
Now imagine that the company which made that machine recalls all the defective products and replaces them with a safer product - as long as the people with the defective product have a "proof of purchase". If they don't, they'd have to buy the new one for an stratospheric price.
The problem isn't just for those with the stolen machine, but those who live NEAR those with a stolen machine - they're affected too.
Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the manufacturer to provide safer replacements FOR FREE, even if the products were stolen in the first place?
why do we blast Microsoft for its desire to see these machines taken offline?
The problem is that Microsoft does NOT desire to see these machines taken offline. If that was the case, they could have set a virus that would disable network connectivity on infected machines, as a "security measure". I would vote for this measure! We'd get rid of thousands of botnets in one pass.
Instead, They keep these machines ONLINE, unpatched, and vulnerable to botnet infection.
I wrote this piece of Vendetta poetry (see sig) thinking about Tanya Andersen, but it applies to this case, too. Aren't they tired of this facade?
Those mischievous moguls magnify their monumental monopolies by multiplying their machinery: Digital Rights Management, DMCA, "Trusted" Computing (Mr. Stallman was not mistaken). Maltreating musicians, misusing copyright to the max, mirroring the Matrix by mining the government to monitor communications, marching like the militia to school meetings in the mornings with menacing memos, mirthfully mismatching mortified mothers for maleficent mobsters, mandating most into misspending more and more (or be imprisoned). Their main motivation is no mystery: Money.
That said, I really hope the judge dismisses the RIAA complaint. This could be a great precedent.
Not all botnets are spread with a browser toolbar. Most of them infect unpatched machines via insecure open ports. Linux is safe from these, while Windows is not. My specific concern is pirated machines which CANNOT be patched due to Microsoft's policies (see my nearby post).
I had asked Microsoft's Security VP, Mike Nash, about the problem of infected pirated machines. And what did he say?
"It's hard for me to feel too bad for the person who you know who doesn't have a licensed copy of Windows and is infected. They are using stolen software."
In other words, we ALL are suffering spam, viruses and worms because Mike Nash got picky about not providing security to "stolen software".
It $hould be clear now that Micro$oft got their prioritie$ $traight. Right?
is that SCO filing for bankruptcy was necessary for him to admit his mistake. That's not being mistaken, that's being IRRATIONAL and STUBBORN. We can afford that, we're hobbyists - but he's a journalist. Now I'm starting to wonder if he has committed OTHER mistakes.
Thanks for that, I really hope that after knowing their algorithm, we can counter them more efficiently. I'm just sick tired of those "uncensored / full / full version".zip/.exe/.com fake files that appear in all my queries. They're like P2P SPAM.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to think that "software as a service" meant using F/OSS (like PHP) and giving service to it (which is a perfectly valid business model). When I learned the true meaning, I realized it's nothing more than "renting software" with another name. It's much worse when it's "renting software AND storage for your data" :-/
Victory!!! ^_^
I can tell you what it is...
The split between Apple and (music) producers is indecent [...] Our contracts give too good a share to Apple.
:)
I agree. Music PRODUCERS (this is, the artists, and not the greedy intermediaries) should get more share
Strange curiosity: Today's captcha is "authors"
This reminds me of a joke (now in my journal).
There were three guys in prison... two muscular, bearded and looking really badass.
One of the ruffians asks the other: "So, what did you get prison for?"
"I killed 10 people - cut their arms and legs with a pocket knife, just for the fun of it. You?"
The other guy answers: "I caught my wife with another man. Burned the hell outta' them".
Then they stare at the third guy - a wimpy kid with glasses sitting in a corner. "Hey kid, what ya here for?"
The kid answers in a depressed tone: "I pirated stuff from the internet".
The two ruffians gasp, back off and start sweating.
A guy is whining (to courts, but still whining) because some guys are whining about him? Someone please give him a Video tutorial on "how to plummet your sales" starring the SCO execs. Sheesh.
One of the things they're adding is a time-based cache for unused images. For example, if after 5 seconds an image isn't used, it's freed from memory. This alone gave them a huge memory boost, IIRC.
He was funny a couple of years ago, but it's like an annoying joke that was funny at first and then starts driving you nuts. I wish he just shut up.
Oh Noes!!! My dragon she be stumbling!!! I gots to RELAX! RIGHT NOW !!!!!! ARGHHHH!!!!!!!
Why am I suddenly reminded of psygnosis' Lemmings?
funny. I just made a call yesterday using this system and suddenly I'm getting ads about weapons, espionage, government contractors...
wait a sec. Some men in black are knocking on my window. brb.
like the moisture in your hand to assess whether you're stressed.
In other words, whenever your palm gets sweaty, you're stressed. And I'm supposed tu buy an expensive device to tell me that? O.o
How about if I claim a government cover-up? Where are the men in black?
Take a look at this light, please. *FLASH*
I agree. A few obvious questions: what is the actual performance deterioration curve, what is the efficiency after 5-10 kerosene burns and what are the disposal requirements (it has the dirty "C" word in so do not expect them to be accepted at the tip).
What I'm trying to establish here is just why it's Microsoft's responsibility to deal with these particular machines.
Let's assume that the govt bans a certain food-processing machine because it releases a toxic gas into the air, which produces cancer. Unfortunately, they found out after the machine became so popular that it became a necessity for people to live a decent life.
Now imagine that the company which made that machine recalls all the defective products and replaces them with a safer product - as long as the people with the defective product have a "proof of purchase". If they don't, they'd have to buy the new one for an stratospheric price.
The problem isn't just for those with the stolen machine, but those who live NEAR those with a stolen machine - they're affected too.
Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the manufacturer to provide safer replacements FOR FREE, even if the products were stolen in the first place?
Right now I have a image of people rushing over to a smoking server as it seems the site has gone down.
Alright, where's the jester that put his raytracing software in the server!?
why do we blast Microsoft for its desire to see these machines taken offline?
The problem is that Microsoft does NOT desire to see these machines taken offline. If that was the case, they could have set a virus that would disable network connectivity on infected machines, as a "security measure". I would vote for this measure! We'd get rid of thousands of botnets in one pass.
Instead, They keep these machines ONLINE, unpatched, and vulnerable to botnet infection.
That said, I really hope the judge dismisses the RIAA complaint. This could be a great precedent.
Not all botnets are spread with a browser toolbar. Most of them infect unpatched machines via insecure open ports. Linux is safe from these, while Windows is not. My specific concern is pirated machines which CANNOT be patched due to Microsoft's policies (see my nearby post).
I had asked Microsoft's Security VP, Mike Nash, about the problem of infected pirated machines. And what did he say?
"It's hard for me to feel too bad for the person who you know who doesn't have a licensed copy of Windows and is infected. They are using stolen software."
In other words, we ALL are suffering spam, viruses and worms because Mike Nash got picky about not providing security to "stolen software".
It $hould be clear now that Micro$oft got their prioritie$ $traight. Right?
The resulting offspring would spend all their time searching themselves for terrorists.
:)
Except in China!
Perhaps I should clarify. I don't know the guy - in fact, this is the first time I heard about him. So that's why I said "if".
is that SCO filing for bankruptcy was necessary for him to admit his mistake.
That's not being mistaken, that's being IRRATIONAL and STUBBORN. We can afford that, we're hobbyists - but he's a journalist. Now I'm starting to wonder if he has committed OTHER mistakes.
Thanks for that, I really hope that after knowing their algorithm, we can counter them more efficiently. I'm just sick tired of those "uncensored / full / full version" .zip/.exe/.com fake files that appear in all my queries. They're like P2P SPAM.
and they work for the RIAA. So if you're against the RIAA, as I think almost everybody here is, you can safely assume they're "the bad guys".
well, at least he wasn't tasered.
The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now music downloaders were tasered, arrested and condemned a-la Judge Dredd.
A couple of years ago I was only angry at the U.S. Now I'm all freaked out.