So they've gone from saying Linux lifted huge chunks of code from Unix wholesale to saying that IBM shared "methods and concepts," oh and a little code too?
Well, you have to read what the intro says, the story says, and some history about the case. As I understand it, SCO is finally saying the ways that IBM abused it's contract with SCO. Notice the lack of Copyright claims in this statement. That's because the original case, regardless of what Darl liked to spew to the public, was about a contract violation. Whether that's still what the case is about eludes me right now, I thought they dropped the contract claims to focus on Copyright.
It's been reported that IBM's contract with SCO stated that they weren't allowed to put technologies from their Unix into any other OS. This is not exclusive to those that weren't put there by IBM. That means that IBM could not use their "IP" in any other OS without consent from SCO. Many think that, if this stipulation were in IBM's contracts with SCO that SCO had a decent case against IBM.
Then SCO started with all of the Copyright junk.
If I'm reading this right, then this still would seem secondary and SCO still hasn't provided any evidence of Copyright infringement. They've just strengthened a case that few contested, and they've declared as less important.
Heh. I was actually getting at the insinuation that if Apple succeeds in this venture then the movie industry may see themselves being Apple in that the only successful way to distribute the content will be via iTunes. The same way iTunes outsells all of the other "legal" music download services.
And the movie industry will have the added benefit of being apple to skip right past the bulk of pirating (if they get they're heads out of the sand). [emphasis mine]
Of course, the reality is that the vast majority of the cell phones in the US are controlled by Baby Bells.
I bet my Verizon cell phone that you're right!
And it wouldn't be many mergers before the majority of the data lines could be controlled by a single entity. Heck, MCI/Worldcomm alone has some rather key lines that cross the Mississippi. They're not the only ones, but if they were to lock your data out of their network I think you'd notice (if you're in the continental US at least).
Even though there are only a handful of companies in charge of the various assets I listed there would be a world of complexity attempting to purchase all of them. Not the least of which would be clearing it all by the FTC. My point wasn't that it was completely impossible, merely that the chances of it happening are slim and the barriers to keep it from happening are many.
Well the unlimited budget is gone too. AT&T in the day basically threw money at Phds. Minor things like the transistor came from Bell labs. The loss of Bell labs alone was the best reason NOT to break the monopoly.
That's true. Lucent is but a shadow of the original Bell Labs.
The thing is that there will always be some company willing to throw money at smart people to try to reap the rewards later. Look at Google now. Who know where they'll be in 10 years, but right now they have a lot of talent that's given freedom to create. Toyota and Honda both have reasonably large budgets for this, as well. Those are just some examples, I'm sure there's other companies that give decent budgets and allow a lot of creativity.
Its a trade-off, but I still think the country would have been better off with a regulated monopoly service and the r&d of Bell labs vs the way things went.
Well, they just ended up with smaller monopolies. Any one of them could have continued to give their R&D departments a large budget, they chose not to. There's nothing to say that AT&T wouldn't have eventually cut that budget anyway, especially when they realized that all the R&D in the world isn't going to increase a monopolies market share.
Or the default action if you incorrectly type a URL in IE. I'm assuming that's what the parent had meant.
The point is, and I believe yours was, that Google has been competing in a market unfairly skewed towards MS already. The problem is that MS has yet to figure out how to leverage their monopoly in a way that will force people to use their search over Google. Essentially, it's too easy to just use Google instead.
MS won't have an upper hand without tying something to their search where it's just that much more convenient to use MSN and not switch to Google. I highly suspect this means the desktop search incorporated into Vista. They're looking to kill Google's desktop search, and then they'll probably make it much more difficult to switch the web search associated to it away from MSN. That's much more like the Microsoft we know and love (to hate).
I don't see what the hubbub about all of this is, though. The forced split of AT&T was a success, in so much as creating competition and removing the public's reliance on a single firm. With this acquisition by one of the largest baby bells it brings the company back in line to compete. It's not like they'll suddenly be allowed to buy out Verizon and create another monopoly on that scale.
To top things off, even if they were to obtain a monopoly on the telephone system again it would never be as powerful as the one they once had. Today we have Cell Phones and VoIP. There's other means of efficiently communicating over long distances. They would basically have to buy control over most of the network comprising the US portion of the Internet to be able to come close to what they once had. I just don't see that happening any time soon.
When it comes to real users, bubbly GUIs like those shown in most Windows Vista screenshots do not appeal. Most serious users will mock such sassery.
Believe it or not, MS is listening to this. I only say that because I have some experience with and training on IIS 6. IIS 6 stores it's settings in XML and has command line tools. What's more significant is that in the training courses provided by MS they teach both ways to administer the server, via text file and command line or via GUI.
Obviously, they have a very long way to go. I just think that they actually are starting to get this aspect of things.
It really sounds like you did one of the following:
Used one of the generic addresses that most website administrators have (i.e. webmaster@, administrator@)
Forwarded all mail going to your domain to one address (i.e. *@mydomain.com --> my@email.com)
Whored your email out to every website that asked for it.
It's my opinion that you have a better chance at avoiding spam by having your own domain. You can set your name in the email to be any random thing you want, so spammers have a much lower chance of figuring it out. More over, you can create new addresses specifically for higher-spam duties. I hardly give out my @mydomain address, especially not to websites, I get no spam and only a few less than welcome newsletters (my laziness, not their fault). However, the webmaster mailbox does get spam, just because any domain will have that happen.
As someone else pointed out, it's not a bad idea just to forward your @mydomain email to a service like gmail. Then you get the benefit of their spam filtration and interface, but you get the added benefit of owning your email address and controlling it. If gmail closes down tomorrow you simply forward to somewhere else.
They are very close, but there's just enough difference to make them both valuable questions and answers.
I hate to reply to myself, but I realize now that I left that post a bit unfinished. The parent had said that the questions were the same. I paid more attention to interpreting the question and answer pairs as whole objects.
To reply to the original charge that the questions are the same: They are not. One deals with now, the other deals with the future. "Will that address ever change?" is a question about the future of an email address. "Will I also need to change that address?" is a question about the present.
These two sentences look similar, but examining them closer shows they have different intent. I think it would clear things up a lot if they changed "Will I also need to change that address?" to "Do I also need to change that address?"
What if I'm a UK user who already has a Gmail address? Will that address ever change?
Unfortunately, we don't know. We would love to say that your address will always remain the same. But the trademark issue is still unsettled, and unfortunately, we cannot predict what the other party or the courts might do here. You can always use your same username with an @googlemail.com address to avoid this issue later on. But trust that we will do the best we can to make sure your email address won't ever have to change.
Translation: They cannot guarantee that your address won't change if you have an existing account and are allowed to continue using the gmail.com domain.
Q5:
What if I'm a UK user who already has a Gmail address? Will I also need to change that address?
No, this change doesn't affect existing Gmail addresses. For now, our plan is only to issue @googlemail.com addresses to new users. Trust that we will do the best we can to offer all our users a reliable and consistent email experience.
Translation: You don't need to change your address right now if you have an existing account that is allowed to use the gmail.com domain. New accounts will not be issued gmail.com email addresses, in favor of googlemail.com.
They are very close, but there's just enough difference to make them both valuable questions and answers.
And, why the hell wouldn't Billy donate? I'm sure the museum will have the largest section devoted to Microsoft.
Because it's good PR. $15 mil. is pocket change to him, but it buys never-ending advertising in a place sure to only ever be visited by the target audience.
The lameness filter is giving me grief for my stupid joke
Hee hee. Honestly, if it was a better lameness filter it'd let your joke through but block my post. I can't believe I wrote "OGG" over and over again. I could make excuses or lambast the other poster for nitpicking, but that would just be more lame. Obviously lameness is subjectively in the content as much as it is in the formatting.
Noted. You can note that I'm not some crazy Linux nut. I have two licenses of XP, one is in use. I also am an avid BSD fan. Lastly, I don't mind Windows (sans IE and Office) myself, but I do mind that I'm not really offered much of a choice but to have it.
why isn't a single universal OS a good idea? Why should I have to check the back of the box to see if it works, or hunt around for a version that runs on my platform?
It's not the single OS that should be the issue, it's being forced to use a single platform that is. If the Windows/Office/IE platform did not do everything possible to create a vendor lock-in then it wouldn't be an issue. There would only be the security concerns, but those are out of scope and easily refuted. If IE was truly platform-independent and you couldn't write Windows-only web apps for it, then it wouldn't be an issue. If Office wrote to open formats by default, and didn't try to lock people in with document formats and MS-only scripts, then there wouldn't be an issue there either. Lastly, Windows, well it could be better. It'd be nice if MS didn't encourage you to code in VB and use MS-only shared components, but you could make similar arguments about other OSes.
The way I look at it, an OS provides basic services such as memory and file management, device control, scheduling, and so on. Other than for specialized applications (such as embedded), why do I need three, four, or dozens of solutions each reimplementing the wheel?
Because with each turn of that wheel Microsoft tries to incorporate more and more functionality beyond what you list. Also, sometimes reimplementing the wheel is a good thing. First we had stone wheels, then we made them of wood, then we figured out that we could put metal around the wood so it'd last longer, then we realized that rubber had the same effect but also absorbed some of the shock from bumps. Now we have run-flat, reinforced tubed tires that last for thousands of miles of use and absorb a good bit of shock from the road.
A single widespread platform means a larger audience for developers, who only have to write their software once, and who can work on features and bugs rather than ports. You also end up with a correspondingly larger selection of software for users.
This is true. However, if that platform were built around open standards then it would encourage choice while not locking people into one vendor. It's possible to do it in a way where 99% of the public can use one thing if they want, but that last 1% can use another. Alas, that won't happen unless MS is forced to something about. MS won't be forced if communities like Slashdot don't form together and proclaim that they want this sort of thing.
Don't read too much into the anti-MS propaganda of Slashdot.
I don't like propaganda at all. I don't like the anti-Linux propaganda. I don't like the anti-Apple propaganda. Most of all, I'm really sick of the anti-Slashdot propaganda on Slashdot. It's self defeating.
That's fine and well, but there are plenty of people who don't want to feed Microsoft any longer. They just don't see the light at the end of the tunnel and so they adopt an attitude that there's just no way around it. Well, it's those people who we're trying to convince that there is computing beyond Windows and you don't need to have Microsoft's software to get by.
Anyway, in all honesty, it's Microsoft's desire to thwart competition that is the biggest reason why you can't get that software on those other platforms. The next biggest reason is the people who proclaim that you must use Windows to have software options. Well, if less people insisted on that then more commercial developers might see a reason to port programs to or develop for other platforms.
Actually IRiver and RIO both have players that support Ogg. Yes MP3 is a more universal format so using it for a an audio book is the logical choice.
So does Samsung and iAudio. Last week my wife decided she finally wanted an MP3 player and, since I'd ripped most of our CDs in OGG format, I required that it support OGG. She required that it be "cute". This was far more difficult than one might think.
The first problem: Sorting out which players actually support OGG. Depending on what website you go to to compare, and what manufacturer you use, it can be quite difficult to find which players support OGG. Many of the manufacturers do not support OGG on all players (iRiver, for example). Some players claim OGG support in some places but not others.
The second problem: "What the hell is OGG?" That's what most non-geeks will say. Even some geeks who think that de facto standards trump open standards will give you a queer look when you mention OGG. Certainly you'll run into problems if you walk into Best Buy and say: "I'm looking for an MP3 player with OGG support."
The third problem (not for me, but I'm sure for many): It's not supported on the iPod. Ugh. Yeah yeah, AAC, whatever.
The fourth problem: You've made using iTunes much more difficult. Now you must either burn and copy or use something to strip the DRM. Of course, you could use another service, but then you get Microsoft DRM, which is bleh. Then you have eMusic, which is good accept it's a monthly fee service (the only point of joining a service like that is to get the occasional single, otherwise buying CDs is so much better) and it doesn't have as good of a library. There's the less-than-legal ways to get your music, but they shouldn't be considered (for this argument).
Wow, what a tangent.
Anyway, the flip side of this is when someone gets a player that supports OGG, but doesn't do so purposefully. They read something that says "OGG Vorbis support" and don't know what that is. Then they forget. After that, as far as their concerned, they don't have a way to play that.
I can see the Chesapeak Bay Bridge tunnel from my bedroom and I can assure you accidents on that thing create miles of traffic.
I don't doubt that at all. Being two lanes in either direction it doesn't lend itself to allowing traffic to flow around them. Though, a bridge as wide as the one proposed, with the (comparatively) short distance proposed, shouldn't have as much of a problem.
As an aside my most unusual experience was heading in to the tunnel and noticing I was headed *under* a US Navy submarine.
I can imagine. It's a very surreal span of roadway. I've only been on it once, but I was quite astonished. For those who haven't crossed it: After you're a couple miles into crossing it you can't see land at all. Then, approaching the tunnels, the bridge looks to disappear into the water until you get closer and see the mouth of the tunnel.
What you want to look into and support is JXTA. It's a service level P2P implementation that is intended to be used much like normal TCP/IP is today. myJXTA is one of the early apps, a P2P chat application.
I don't know much about JXTA. I just have a friend who once got really excited about it and actually joined the dev team. Then he made one or two contributions and lost his interest. To make a long story short: I don't know the fine details, that's why I posted links.
There are plenty of bridges that are longer than that and they serve their purpose well. This is just the longest suspension bridge. I've personally used the 23-mile bridge-tunnel across the Chesapeake Bay. Also consider the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, it's 23 miles all above water. Neither of them are as wide as this bridge is proposed to be, either.
Re:Demand nothing less than software freedom.
on
PCs Posted No Trespass
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What you think are reasonable minimum standards are so easily worked around in licensing.
Where as what he suggests may be a little simplistic and utopian, I think that your criticism doesn't really negate his suggestions.
Licenses are just contracts and, at least in the US, there are some laws limiting contracts. Specifically, contracts can be deamed unenforceable if they are proven to be unreasonable. I'm sure that a good lawyer with a bit of luck could invalidate a contract stating that you give over your computer to be used however a software publisher wants at the click of a button. The problem is finding a martyr to represent the people in that battle. Then again, if such a law were in place it would only take one class-action lawsuit to scare most spyware makers out of the country.
If you want to poke holes in his utopia then you should point out that not everyone lives in America, so a law like that would only be so effective. The same way that the laws against spam have done nothing. It won't protect computers outside of this country, and it won't affect software publishers outside of this country.
I believe that the best way to fight this would be to make a law similar to those pertaining to receiving stolen goods. In other words, make it a criminal act to profit off of these things. The problem is to narrowly define what spyware is, and head off the licensing issues before an expensive court case. I'm not sure that our current set of lawmakers is intelligent enough to form a law that doesn't significantly increase the liability for most legitimate software publishers.
More on topic I don't think it matters who buys AOL I don't think either company is going to do anything else than cross plug there own products....
Well, perhaps Google would then be able to convince Time Warner that federating IM is worthwhile. If that's the only thing that would happen from this then I'd be happy about it. Especially with MS and Yahoo! supposedly teaming up.
I've successfully used Trillian with WINE before. It's just that good of an application that I was willing to go through the trouble to see if I could use it instead of Gaim. Unfortunately, it's just quirky enough when used with WINE that it makes you see the virtues of sticking with Gaim. When in Windows, though, Trillian is king.
Ohh yeah, before the joke is made by someone else:
I also have successfully used Trillian under the influence of wine before.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you have to read what the intro says, the story says, and some history about the case. As I understand it, SCO is finally saying the ways that IBM abused it's contract with SCO. Notice the lack of Copyright claims in this statement. That's because the original case, regardless of what Darl liked to spew to the public, was about a contract violation. Whether that's still what the case is about eludes me right now, I thought they dropped the contract claims to focus on Copyright.
It's been reported that IBM's contract with SCO stated that they weren't allowed to put technologies from their Unix into any other OS. This is not exclusive to those that weren't put there by IBM. That means that IBM could not use their "IP" in any other OS without consent from SCO. Many think that, if this stipulation were in IBM's contracts with SCO that SCO had a decent case against IBM.
Then SCO started with all of the Copyright junk.
If I'm reading this right, then this still would seem secondary and SCO still hasn't provided any evidence of Copyright infringement. They've just strengthened a case that few contested, and they've declared as less important.
Heh. I was actually getting at the insinuation that if Apple succeeds in this venture then the movie industry may see themselves being Apple in that the only successful way to distribute the content will be via iTunes. The same way iTunes outsells all of the other "legal" music download services.
Freudian slip?
Of course, the reality is that the vast majority of the cell phones in the US are controlled by Baby Bells.
I bet my Verizon cell phone that you're right!
And it wouldn't be many mergers before the majority of the data lines could be controlled by a single entity. Heck, MCI/Worldcomm alone has some rather key lines that cross the Mississippi. They're not the only ones, but if they were to lock your data out of their network I think you'd notice (if you're in the continental US at least).
Even though there are only a handful of companies in charge of the various assets I listed there would be a world of complexity attempting to purchase all of them. Not the least of which would be clearing it all by the FTC. My point wasn't that it was completely impossible, merely that the chances of it happening are slim and the barriers to keep it from happening are many.
That's true. Lucent is but a shadow of the original Bell Labs.
The thing is that there will always be some company willing to throw money at smart people to try to reap the rewards later. Look at Google now. Who know where they'll be in 10 years, but right now they have a lot of talent that's given freedom to create. Toyota and Honda both have reasonably large budgets for this, as well. Those are just some examples, I'm sure there's other companies that give decent budgets and allow a lot of creativity.
Its a trade-off, but I still think the country would have been better off with a regulated monopoly service and the r&d of Bell labs vs the way things went.
Well, they just ended up with smaller monopolies. Any one of them could have continued to give their R&D departments a large budget, they chose not to. There's nothing to say that AT&T wouldn't have eventually cut that budget anyway, especially when they realized that all the R&D in the world isn't going to increase a monopolies market share.
The point is, and I believe yours was, that Google has been competing in a market unfairly skewed towards MS already. The problem is that MS has yet to figure out how to leverage their monopoly in a way that will force people to use their search over Google. Essentially, it's too easy to just use Google instead.
MS won't have an upper hand without tying something to their search where it's just that much more convenient to use MSN and not switch to Google. I highly suspect this means the desktop search incorporated into Vista. They're looking to kill Google's desktop search, and then they'll probably make it much more difficult to switch the web search associated to it away from MSN. That's much more like the Microsoft we know and love (to hate).
On the other hand, AT&T had a nifty lab of their own. http://public.research.att.com/
I don't see what the hubbub about all of this is, though. The forced split of AT&T was a success, in so much as creating competition and removing the public's reliance on a single firm. With this acquisition by one of the largest baby bells it brings the company back in line to compete. It's not like they'll suddenly be allowed to buy out Verizon and create another monopoly on that scale.
To top things off, even if they were to obtain a monopoly on the telephone system again it would never be as powerful as the one they once had. Today we have Cell Phones and VoIP. There's other means of efficiently communicating over long distances. They would basically have to buy control over most of the network comprising the US portion of the Internet to be able to come close to what they once had. I just don't see that happening any time soon.
Perhaps you should wait until GM comes out with the Nano Hummer, the nano truck that's as spacious as a Geo Metro.
Believe it or not, MS is listening to this. I only say that because I have some experience with and training on IIS 6. IIS 6 stores it's settings in XML and has command line tools. What's more significant is that in the training courses provided by MS they teach both ways to administer the server, via text file and command line or via GUI.
Obviously, they have a very long way to go. I just think that they actually are starting to get this aspect of things.
It's my opinion that you have a better chance at avoiding spam by having your own domain. You can set your name in the email to be any random thing you want, so spammers have a much lower chance of figuring it out. More over, you can create new addresses specifically for higher-spam duties. I hardly give out my @mydomain address, especially not to websites, I get no spam and only a few less than welcome newsletters (my laziness, not their fault). However, the webmaster mailbox does get spam, just because any domain will have that happen.
As someone else pointed out, it's not a bad idea just to forward your @mydomain email to a service like gmail. Then you get the benefit of their spam filtration and interface, but you get the added benefit of owning your email address and controlling it. If gmail closes down tomorrow you simply forward to somewhere else.
I hate to reply to myself, but I realize now that I left that post a bit unfinished. The parent had said that the questions were the same. I paid more attention to interpreting the question and answer pairs as whole objects.
To reply to the original charge that the questions are the same: They are not. One deals with now, the other deals with the future. "Will that address ever change?" is a question about the future of an email address. "Will I also need to change that address?" is a question about the present.
These two sentences look similar, but examining them closer shows they have different intent. I think it would clear things up a lot if they changed "Will I also need to change that address?" to "Do I also need to change that address?"
Translation: They cannot guarantee that your address won't change if you have an existing account and are allowed to continue using the gmail.com domain.
Q5:
Translation: You don't need to change your address right now if you have an existing account that is allowed to use the gmail.com domain. New accounts will not be issued gmail.com email addresses, in favor of googlemail.com.
They are very close, but there's just enough difference to make them both valuable questions and answers.
Because it's good PR. $15 mil. is pocket change to him, but it buys never-ending advertising in a place sure to only ever be visited by the target audience.
Hee hee. Honestly, if it was a better lameness filter it'd let your joke through but block my post. I can't believe I wrote "OGG" over and over again. I could make excuses or lambast the other poster for nitpicking, but that would just be more lame. Obviously lameness is subjectively in the content as much as it is in the formatting.
Then I'll be the only one who can pay my employees.
Noted. You can note that I'm not some crazy Linux nut. I have two licenses of XP, one is in use. I also am an avid BSD fan. Lastly, I don't mind Windows (sans IE and Office) myself, but I do mind that I'm not really offered much of a choice but to have it.
why isn't a single universal OS a good idea? Why should I have to check the back of the box to see if it works, or hunt around for a version that runs on my platform?
It's not the single OS that should be the issue, it's being forced to use a single platform that is. If the Windows/Office/IE platform did not do everything possible to create a vendor lock-in then it wouldn't be an issue. There would only be the security concerns, but those are out of scope and easily refuted. If IE was truly platform-independent and you couldn't write Windows-only web apps for it, then it wouldn't be an issue. If Office wrote to open formats by default, and didn't try to lock people in with document formats and MS-only scripts, then there wouldn't be an issue there either. Lastly, Windows, well it could be better. It'd be nice if MS didn't encourage you to code in VB and use MS-only shared components, but you could make similar arguments about other OSes.
The way I look at it, an OS provides basic services such as memory and file management, device control, scheduling, and so on. Other than for specialized applications (such as embedded), why do I need three, four, or dozens of solutions each reimplementing the wheel?
Because with each turn of that wheel Microsoft tries to incorporate more and more functionality beyond what you list. Also, sometimes reimplementing the wheel is a good thing. First we had stone wheels, then we made them of wood, then we figured out that we could put metal around the wood so it'd last longer, then we realized that rubber had the same effect but also absorbed some of the shock from bumps. Now we have run-flat, reinforced tubed tires that last for thousands of miles of use and absorb a good bit of shock from the road.
A single widespread platform means a larger audience for developers, who only have to write their software once, and who can work on features and bugs rather than ports. You also end up with a correspondingly larger selection of software for users.
This is true. However, if that platform were built around open standards then it would encourage choice while not locking people into one vendor. It's possible to do it in a way where 99% of the public can use one thing if they want, but that last 1% can use another. Alas, that won't happen unless MS is forced to something about. MS won't be forced if communities like Slashdot don't form together and proclaim that they want this sort of thing.
I don't like propaganda at all. I don't like the anti-Linux propaganda. I don't like the anti-Apple propaganda. Most of all, I'm really sick of the anti-Slashdot propaganda on Slashdot. It's self defeating.
Anyway, in all honesty, it's Microsoft's desire to thwart competition that is the biggest reason why you can't get that software on those other platforms. The next biggest reason is the people who proclaim that you must use Windows to have software options. Well, if less people insisted on that then more commercial developers might see a reason to port programs to or develop for other platforms.
So does Samsung and iAudio. Last week my wife decided she finally wanted an MP3 player and, since I'd ripped most of our CDs in OGG format, I required that it support OGG. She required that it be "cute". This was far more difficult than one might think.
The first problem: Sorting out which players actually support OGG. Depending on what website you go to to compare, and what manufacturer you use, it can be quite difficult to find which players support OGG. Many of the manufacturers do not support OGG on all players (iRiver, for example). Some players claim OGG support in some places but not others.
The second problem: "What the hell is OGG?" That's what most non-geeks will say. Even some geeks who think that de facto standards trump open standards will give you a queer look when you mention OGG. Certainly you'll run into problems if you walk into Best Buy and say: "I'm looking for an MP3 player with OGG support."
The third problem (not for me, but I'm sure for many): It's not supported on the iPod. Ugh. Yeah yeah, AAC, whatever.
The fourth problem: You've made using iTunes much more difficult. Now you must either burn and copy or use something to strip the DRM. Of course, you could use another service, but then you get Microsoft DRM, which is bleh. Then you have eMusic, which is good accept it's a monthly fee service (the only point of joining a service like that is to get the occasional single, otherwise buying CDs is so much better) and it doesn't have as good of a library. There's the less-than-legal ways to get your music, but they shouldn't be considered (for this argument).
Wow, what a tangent.
Anyway, the flip side of this is when someone gets a player that supports OGG, but doesn't do so purposefully. They read something that says "OGG Vorbis support" and don't know what that is. Then they forget. After that, as far as their concerned, they don't have a way to play that.
I don't doubt that at all. Being two lanes in either direction it doesn't lend itself to allowing traffic to flow around them. Though, a bridge as wide as the one proposed, with the (comparatively) short distance proposed, shouldn't have as much of a problem.
As an aside my most unusual experience was heading in to the tunnel and noticing I was headed *under* a US Navy submarine.
I can imagine. It's a very surreal span of roadway. I've only been on it once, but I was quite astonished. For those who haven't crossed it: After you're a couple miles into crossing it you can't see land at all. Then, approaching the tunnels, the bridge looks to disappear into the water until you get closer and see the mouth of the tunnel.
I don't know much about JXTA. I just have a friend who once got really excited about it and actually joined the dev team. Then he made one or two contributions and lost his interest. To make a long story short: I don't know the fine details, that's why I posted links.
There are plenty of bridges that are longer than that and they serve their purpose well. This is just the longest suspension bridge. I've personally used the 23-mile bridge-tunnel across the Chesapeake Bay. Also consider the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, it's 23 miles all above water. Neither of them are as wide as this bridge is proposed to be, either.
Where as what he suggests may be a little simplistic and utopian, I think that your criticism doesn't really negate his suggestions.
Licenses are just contracts and, at least in the US, there are some laws limiting contracts. Specifically, contracts can be deamed unenforceable if they are proven to be unreasonable. I'm sure that a good lawyer with a bit of luck could invalidate a contract stating that you give over your computer to be used however a software publisher wants at the click of a button. The problem is finding a martyr to represent the people in that battle. Then again, if such a law were in place it would only take one class-action lawsuit to scare most spyware makers out of the country.
If you want to poke holes in his utopia then you should point out that not everyone lives in America, so a law like that would only be so effective. The same way that the laws against spam have done nothing. It won't protect computers outside of this country, and it won't affect software publishers outside of this country.
I believe that the best way to fight this would be to make a law similar to those pertaining to receiving stolen goods. In other words, make it a criminal act to profit off of these things. The problem is to narrowly define what spyware is, and head off the licensing issues before an expensive court case. I'm not sure that our current set of lawmakers is intelligent enough to form a law that doesn't significantly increase the liability for most legitimate software publishers.
Well, perhaps Google would then be able to convince Time Warner that federating IM is worthwhile. If that's the only thing that would happen from this then I'd be happy about it. Especially with MS and Yahoo! supposedly teaming up.
Ohh yeah, before the joke is made by someone else:
I also have successfully used Trillian under the influence of wine before.