But there's no question that an OS claims to be so simple anybody can use it must also be so secure and bug free that nobody could accidentally screw it up.
Umm, your sentence does not completely make sense. The OS is pretty simple to use and pretty secure. Apple claims it is easy to use and occasionally remarks upon security, usually comparing it to Windows. What's the problem? Compared to Windows OS X is fort Knox.
There's a whole herd of Mac users that still believe the the Mac is un-hackable and virus-proof. They'll click on any attachment they get. Those same people will feel free to screw with any setting on their Mac because there's no way they could ever get hacked.
I've heard this kind of comment before and I wonder what kind of Mac users these people know. Most people know Windows and some are vaguely aware there are other kinds of computers like macs and Linux systems. They've heard these systems are more secure than Windows and don't always get viruses and spyware. For the most part, this is true. Most users of any OS never "screw with any setting(s)" and for the most part most OS X users can click on any attachment they want and not have any problems. The only thing I've ever received in any of my mailboxes that would cause a problem if I double clicked on it was a single piece of malware that did not propagate and which I had to request a copy of from some security guys I know.
So maybe this is not the best practice, but for the most part people have not been burned by it. Maybe that will change and maybe people will become more cautious if it does.
I basically know three kinds of mac users: clueless people who don't change any settings, workers, who use it and may occasionally change settings, but only after asking someone, and experts who know the ramifications of their changes and would not dream of using OS X as a "secure" system. This correlates about the same as Linux users I know. Windows users I know mostly just expect to be hacked all the time and are resigned to periodically cleaning it up, or they are paranoid about it and try to insulate their Windows boxes from the internet as much as possible. Most of the former just open whatever and most of the latter don't use Windows for their e-mail.
What good is a door if it's welded shut? Wouldn't a proper lock be more useful? Security should be about maximizing functionality securely, not limiting it.
Ideally, any user should be restricted to the behaviors intended by the administrator and there should be no local privilege escalations. Realistically, however, this does not really happen except in a few special cases of extremely security oriented OS's. The first line of defense is how many services you have, think of them as gates in a castle. The second is the firewall, how many gates are open for business. The third is the username/password, do the guards know you and will they let you in. These guard against most threats except for someone who can impersonate someone else or insider threats who have access but want more access. In this case the "hackers" was given legitimate access to come in through the open gate. (A gate the admin specifically had to open and using the username and password the admin gave them.)
Once inside there is still security, but it is much, much less. On the average Windows machine at this point there is no security at all and even on a well secured Windows machine there are thousands of unpatched privilege escalation exploits. At this point on either a Mac OS X desktop or the average Linux machine a knowledgeable security person will be able to gain admin access. That is a sad fact, but it is the case for the vast majority of systems. Exceptions might be a locked down OpenBSD box running jails, an SELinux box, or some other specialized ultra-secure OS running virtual machines. Very few people run those machines as desktops and those that due generally don't have the best experience because they sacrifice a lot of usability to gain that level of security.
This "test" was no surprise to anyone with a clue. That is exactly what would be expected to happen. Also, some of the better security guys out there can definitely gain remote access to machines using unpublished vulnerabilities. If they really want in they will get into the average OS X or Linux box. So what are we talking about here? Well obviously this is still much better than Windows, but not impregnable. What it does is make you pretty safe from automated worms and your average script kiddie, which far outnumber the knowledgeable crackers out there.
Ideally, all desktop OS's would be locked down more tightly. They would do more security auditing and they would implement ACLs, VMs, or jails for all remote access and all applications. Some day perhaps they will. But for right now it is not a big concern, simply because market does not call for it. Not many people really have data that needs to be kept secure against experts and those that do have specialized OS's to use. Of course they can't run photoshop or World of Warcraft and the users would not trust their internet connection to talk to WoW servers anyway using all closed source. That is a task better allocated to a regular desktop, not a locked down, ultra-secure server. And that is what this "test" has shown. OS X is a desktop and if you bypass all the primary security on it, it will not stand up to a cracker from the inside like OpenBSD might. Of course anyone who really cares already knew that.
So Google copies data and the/. community supports them, But what if Bill G had started to copy deasktop data. The/. foums would melt from teh flames and anger. Hmmm - a little biased are we?
So long as the feature was off by default, I would not have any problem with MS distributing software that did the same thing. This whole article is mindless sensationalism. Workers e-mail company documents to their home accounts! Quick blame the authors of the e-mail programs. Nonsense. Google can't be responsible if users decide to start storing files on the free servers Google provides any more than if users decide to e-mail files to their Gmail accounts. Hell, Goggle even makes a corporate version of this program so sysadmins can deploy and control this functionality from a central point.
If you let your users install anything they want and change the settings to store files remotely and don't limit where they transfer files to and you don't enforce policies saying they can't do that, well I don't think Google is the biggest security problem with your network.
Uhh...Someone writing on a 500,000 viewer site for free is saying marketing is out of reach? (I think thats Slashdots readership),/i>
...except for several important items. One this is a forum with a purpose and random political campaigning will probably be correctly moderated off topic. Two, the number of people who will read any given comment and make decisions based upon that are very small. Third, I'm not a marketing expert and don't have the expertise to craft a proper marketing message.
If you object to something that our government does, there is a simple solution: Get someone else elected! w can anyone hear if you aren't willing to raise your voice?
This is a fine sentiment and vishnu knows many of us try. There are, however, some grim realities in the face of this sort of reform. Marketing works. Marketing is the loudest voice and it costs money. There is a reason companies and campaigns pay for it. The president who spent the most money on marketing has won every election as far back as we can easily record.
The money is not in the hands of the people. Most of the wealth in this country is concentrated into the hands of a small portion of the population, less than 10%. This becomes even more drastic as you figure in the amount of wealth (stocks) owned by less wealthy people but controlled by the wealthy few that are on the boards of those companies. Realistically, the wealthiest 10% of the country has so much more disposable funding that they can spend on marketing that they will be the loudest voice every time.
This wealth disparity is growing worse, not better and additional legislative barriers have been raised to prevent anyone not a republican or democrat from being elected to much of anything. In short things are going to get worse.
Given all of the above, our country is headed the same way as many historical peaks. At some point the people will get so much poorer that they will use force to take back a share of the wealth. This will be a revolution of some sort and it will be messy and painful. Afterwards, who knows what will be the result, but the chances of it being a well formed government for the people, created with altruistic motives by knowledgeable scholars and philosophers is pretty slim.
Am I the only one who finds it extremely dangerous that email is accepted as "evidence" in 2006 by people who can't begin to understand "this tech stuff"?
Sure e-mail can be faked, but most companies have records of what they send and receive. When one company says, "hey we have this e-mail from you" and the other company replies with "we never sent you that and coincidentally for some reason that whole day worth of e-mail has been deleted from our servers, but no other days" it looks very suspicious. Then when evidence is presented showing that second company intentionally deleted the records right after it was presented in court, well I'd say that is pretty good evidence that the e-mail is genuine.
If you want to stop anti-competitive practices, digital distribution needs to adopt the rules of radio: Download services should have the right to sell any digital recording now, and compensate artists afterwards.
Well, that might help with fair use if the RIAA can't specify what DRM is used, but I doubt that will ever fly. Also, this doesn't really address the abuse at hand, price collusion. What does it matter if Apple or Apple and 15 other places sell the song if the price of the song at all these places is artificially high?
I have a number of files that only Open Office would open and it does a much better job than Word, in general. I do have files it fails on as well, although I don't have the most recent version of OO these days as my Windows machine died and the mac version of OpenOffice is lagging far behind. I suppose I could fire up the GUI on NetBSD. Submitting most of the documents, however, is not an option due to the sensitive nature of the content. Thanks for the suggestion though.
Can anyone clear up exactly what OpenXML is? When I google it, I get vague references leading me to believe OpenXML is more of a container, and not Microsoft's specific document format. So, this sounds like another canard from Microsoft with the claim "open" obfuscating what is probably not.
MS is offering to license this format to people under particular terms and parts of this format are indeed binaries embedding in XML. It is also patent encumbered. The main objections to the licensing include restrictions making it unimplementable by GPLed programs and licensing for old versions expires as soon as MS releases a new version, thus providing no guarantee that future generations will be able to legally read the files. Basically it is MS trying to confuse the issue and claim their format is just as open as the Open Document, even though in reality it does not confer the benefits Open Document does.
Sure, you can argue that they aren't as "rich" as Word, PDF et al, but they're standard and they're open.
For that matter PDF is open too. No this basically a crusade against MS proprietary formats and I'm all for it. I have inherited Word files that already cannot be opened with any product available on the market today. Governments especially need to be encouraged to move all the data that belongs to the public into open file formats and one of the best ways to do that is to proscribe an open standard for government use.
Don't worry about other open formats, there will always be ways to convert them, but this is a good strategic move to stop the use of closed formats. One standard provides a unified front for everyone to collaborate on.
I find it funny how Microsoft is accussed of unfair business practices by bundling software with their operating system. They add basic functionality to their operating system and its considered anti-competitive. Apple does the same and it's considered a good thing.
That is because either you don't understand what a monopoly is and why they are forbidden from actions that ruin the market or you're being paid by MS to astroturf here. MS is a monopoly. Apple is not. Thus MS is forbidden from certain actions Apple is not. You see Apple has to make a better server in order to gain market share in the server space. To avoid breaking the law, MS has to do the same thing. But that is hard, so instead MS decided to tie their server and desktop together using secret protocols. This way, even though their server is slower, more expensive, has fewer features, is insecure, and is unstable, it still gains market share because it has the advantage of being tied to the desktop monopoly.
This is illegal for obvious reasons. It hurts the market and consumers end up paying more and getting less. Also, MS thus gains a second monopoly, which they can then use to gain a third and fourth etc., even though their products are inferior. Can you see how this is bad for everyone involved?
MS was convicted in several jurisdictions and part of their punishment was to stop doing it. That is to say, publish all the specs so Apple and Linux vendors and Sun can all compete evenly for the server space and so the cheapest, best product wins. This is what MS is trying to avoid doing. They don't want to have to compete based upon quality and price, they just want consumers to suck it up and pay them for crap.
I have zero sympathy for them too. They broke the law knowingly and in a gamble that it would make them more money than it cost in fines. So far they have been 100% right and made a ton of money by breaking the law. They continue to break the law by bundling and tying new products. It has cost companies billions of dollars, retarded progress in the industry, and put good, innovative companies out of business. Worse it has forced sysadmins around the world to deal with their crappy servers that they need to talk to their desktop.
And MS is laughing all the way to the bank. They need to be more than fined, they need to be broken up. It is the only punishment that will actually stop this crap and put the computing industry back on the path of innovation.
Regardless of the merits of the EU's case against MS, it's important that the trial be fair and appropriately handled and, if Microsoft has reasonable evidence to the point, they have the right to claim damages.
You seem to be operating under a misconception. The trial is over. Microsoft lost. This is Microsoft arguing over whether or not they are actually going to comply with the punishment they agreed they would comply with. Think, "Yeah I know I said I'd spend the 30 days in jail, but it might really cause problems for my drug dealing business. I think I'm going to just confine myself to my home and play video games for a month instead. Except Thursday, I need to go meet some Columbian guys at the airport Thursday."
I'm not sure you're understanding the previous poster. He/she is talking about control networks for botnets, not about distribution mechanisms. Bots and worms can be coded to look for particular filenames on P2P and get their commands from that source. Then they look for the next filename in their list. This is used to direct the bots, not to compromise them.
If you had bothered to read either the study you link to or the ones you reference you'll note that the majority of experimental studies show no difference between playing a video game and any other active task. While plenty of studies show more aggression versus a passive activity, like watching TV or sitting quietly, they aren't exactly normalized and there has been no evidence presented to show a link between video games and more violent personalities developing (twins studies etc.). What you do reference is studies who start with a presupposition and then cherry pick other writings and experiments to try to support a position.
In any case, I don't think you can argue that google search results such as you provided show the sum of work or literature on the subject or are readable as an objective, scientific look at the subject.
Jay-walking is against the law. Do you ALWAYS obey it even though it is a stupid law? Should you be shot in the leg after the first, second, or third offense to discourage you from doing it again? And I am not saying that the anti-trust act is stupid, I'm saying that declaring a corporation a monopoly and fining them because the OS THEY made comes with THEIR internet browser that is an integral part of the system and THEIR media player installed by default.
Stick to the topic. This is not about the browser, this is about the interfaces to the server OS. Bundling is illegal in almost every jurisdiction because it is a simple and easy way to use a monopoly to move into and take over new markets with products that are no better (and often worse) than the competition. Tying, is slightly more complex. The gist of it is, Windows server editions have an advantage over a Linux or Solaris box because they can speak all the secret protocols used to communicate with the desktop. This includes exchange, active directory, etc. As a result of this, Windows servers have an advantage based solely in the fact that they are made by the same company as Windows desktop. Windows servers are generally slower, less secure, less reliable, and can't multitask for crap, but they are tied to Windows desktop and Windows desktop OS's have a monopoly so everyone has to talk to them.
Thus MS was convicted, as they had been in the US and several other countries and as part of their punishment they were ordered to document all those secret interfaces by which their server was being illegally given an advantage. They are in the process of trying to weasel out of that. The reason: they know they can't compete in a fair market but they want to take over that market anyway and they don't mind breaking the law until someone manages to force them to stop.
If you'd like an explanation as to why bundling the browser and media player are illegal and bad for the industry (and can't already see the parallel) just ask, or go ahead and do a Google search. Antitrust law is very well explained many places online.
The long and short is they broke the law and it hurt everyone in the industry. I know a number of sysadmins who run Windows servers as well as Linux simply because they need something that can talk to exchange and active directory. Those servers usually only run one application, since Windows becomes unstable with multiple ones under load. They basically suck, but MS was paid for them anyway. How many billions of dollars did that suck out of countries around the globe? How many cool new technologies were not developed as people struggled to reverse engineer these secret protocols? How much manpower was wasted? How much did the computing industry suffer?
EU is trying to prop up OSS and European businesses because they dont[sic] like the idea that an American Company is the only productive option... Yes yes before i get flamed, i know linux has its place. But honeslty[sic] i have only seen people be productive with Linux in delevoper[sic] and server applicaitons[sic].
Do you even know what this whole thing is all about? MS broke the law by using their monopoly on desktop OS's to give an unfair advantage to their Web browser, media player, and server OS. That last item is the one of note here, since after they were convicted they agreed to fully document all the secret interfaces between their server and desktop OSs by which they were gaining market share with their inferior server OS. Market share gained because it had illegal advantages in dealing with their desktop OS.
This isn't about punishing MS for having a monopoly, it is about punishing them for using that monopoly to force inferior products upon consumers at overly high prices. This is about Windows Server editions being used over cheaper, more reliable, more secure, and more versatile Linux and Unix servers simply because they know the secret handshakes to talk to Windows desktop and all the features built into it.
To put it simply, MS broke the law and they did it knowingly. They built their whole business plan around breaking the law and betting that the courts would not punish them enough to make up for the profit. So far they have been completely correct and now after having been convicted they are trying to weasel our of one of the proscribed punishments. Hopefully they will not succeed.
Now i will sit back and watch the flaming begin because i...gasp... defended an evil american corporation Microsoft on slashdot...what the hell was i thinking. Freedom of speech is an illusion your audiance[sic] gives. You can only freely say what they want to hear or they will string you up denounce you for having opposing views.
Hahahahaha! You seem a little unclear on the concept of free speech as well. You're free to say whatever you want, but anyone is also free to reply with why they disagree with you. Otherwise it would be free speech only for you and not for anyone else, huh? Anyway, what does the fact that they are an American company have to do with it? Most of the companies that benefit from this and are advising the EU are also American. Your nationalism is badly misplaced
That the information is incredibly easy to find? Do I need to teach you how to use google next? Or do you deny it's existence?
But the information is not easy to find. You did not provide the information asked for, or more specifically you provided it mixed with tons of other information that was not relevant.
Suing microsoft is about the dumbest thing in the world with all of the problems societies across the world face. Tax dollars and legislative time should be better spent on real issues not internet explorer and windows media.
The EU is not suing Microsoft. They are overseeing MS's punishment for breaking the law. You might as well argue "tax dollars should not be spent collecting fines from convicted litterers. Just because we went to the expense of trying them and finding them guilty there is no reason we should waste time actually getting the money from them or making sure they do their community service."
Microsoft intentionally broke the law for profit. They are still doing it. They were convicted of it in a number of jurisdictions. You don't think they should be punished for that? You don't think they should have to obey the laws? You don't think something should be done to discourage them from doing it again?
I'd like for Microsoft to win this, be eligible to sue the EU for several billion dollars more than what the EU can get off Microsoft, and then all sides play by the rules for the rest of the debacle.
What the hell are you talking about? MS built their business model around intentionally breaking the laws and once convicted of that are trying to avoid complying with the punishment the courts handed down. And they're doing the same thing in the US, where the DOJ appointed "watchdogs" have reported that MS has also failed to comply with what amounted to a slap on the wrist. It's as if you shoot someone, get convicted, but only given six months probation and a $500 fine because you pay off the judge, and then you don't even fulfill your probation terms.
The "rules" in this situation are the laws which MS is continuing to break and making a bundle doing so. They need to be broken up into multiple companies so this crap stops.
I've read that the problem is the EU is failing to disclose specifics on EXACTLY what kind of documentation is acceptable.
The EU asked for documentation that was complete enough that other companies could code to all the same interface that MS does as judged by several previously agreed upon parties. The first of those parties rejected the initial offering saying it was not usable or up to industry standards. Seeing as this person is someone MS picked to judge this, I don't see how they can find fault with his findings.
Since it would be illegal to publish all the communication in between MS and the EU council none of us can know for certain what is going on, but I think most of us can make some pretty good guesses. MS wants to provide the minimum available information to convince the EU that they have given them what they need. They probably don't have good info documenting this and instead of making it they gave them broken docs and then tried to rope them into an alternative to giving them the docs.
With hundreds of millions of dollars on the line you'd think they could hire some people to exhaustively document the APIs, and you'd be right. The problem is MS does not really want to do that because then they might have to compete on even ground for the server space and that is a fight they can't win with their currently inferior and more expensive product. So they delay and spread FUD while trying to pay off the right people. Even if they lose and have to pay the fines it might still be a good business move for them. The fines are a tiny portion of the profit from their monopoly in the EU and extending that into the server market illegally as they are now doing is a good way to protect that monopoly and expand it.
Did you follow and read the 972 pages of hits on scholar.google.com, also? Or did you just entirely miss the point?
The previous poster asked for the information that supported the statement. You provided a bunch of random links some pro some con and many that were neither. What point did you want me or anyone else to understand from this?
I followed all of those links. Of them only two claimed actual experimental testing, the others were all non-scientific analysis of statistics of previous papers mostly by Anderson who seems to have a lot to say on this subject but to always start with what he is trying to prove and then cite other papers chosen through an unknown process to support it. Basically, pseudo scientific hogwash.
Of the two experimental papers one was pay to read and did not say what the results were. The other was a very small undergrad level study that did not have a control group to account for agitation level. People are more likely to react when they've just gotten done reacting quickly to a video game, hmmmm big surprise. The study did not even purport to study if video games caused more violence, but whether people agitated by playing violent video games versus people who played video golf were more likely to react based upon their gender.
Heh... Google scholar wins.
You know, you actually have to read the articles if you want to learn anything.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't know they had guns in Canada...
How did you envision Canadians in the northern areas dealing with polar bears then? Tasers?
But will the hotspot be strong enough to reach Detroit?
Detroit to Toronto is 393 Km, so I seriously doubt it. Perhaps you were thinking of Windsor?
But there's no question that an OS claims to be so simple anybody can use it must also be so secure and bug free that nobody could accidentally screw it up.
Umm, your sentence does not completely make sense. The OS is pretty simple to use and pretty secure. Apple claims it is easy to use and occasionally remarks upon security, usually comparing it to Windows. What's the problem? Compared to Windows OS X is fort Knox.
There's a whole herd of Mac users that still believe the the Mac is un-hackable and virus-proof. They'll click on any attachment they get. Those same people will feel free to screw with any setting on their Mac because there's no way they could ever get hacked.
I've heard this kind of comment before and I wonder what kind of Mac users these people know. Most people know Windows and some are vaguely aware there are other kinds of computers like macs and Linux systems. They've heard these systems are more secure than Windows and don't always get viruses and spyware. For the most part, this is true. Most users of any OS never "screw with any setting(s)" and for the most part most OS X users can click on any attachment they want and not have any problems. The only thing I've ever received in any of my mailboxes that would cause a problem if I double clicked on it was a single piece of malware that did not propagate and which I had to request a copy of from some security guys I know.
So maybe this is not the best practice, but for the most part people have not been burned by it. Maybe that will change and maybe people will become more cautious if it does.
I basically know three kinds of mac users: clueless people who don't change any settings, workers, who use it and may occasionally change settings, but only after asking someone, and experts who know the ramifications of their changes and would not dream of using OS X as a "secure" system. This correlates about the same as Linux users I know. Windows users I know mostly just expect to be hacked all the time and are resigned to periodically cleaning it up, or they are paranoid about it and try to insulate their Windows boxes from the internet as much as possible. Most of the former just open whatever and most of the latter don't use Windows for their e-mail.
What good is a door if it's welded shut? Wouldn't a proper lock be more useful? Security should be about maximizing functionality securely, not limiting it.
Ideally, any user should be restricted to the behaviors intended by the administrator and there should be no local privilege escalations. Realistically, however, this does not really happen except in a few special cases of extremely security oriented OS's. The first line of defense is how many services you have, think of them as gates in a castle. The second is the firewall, how many gates are open for business. The third is the username/password, do the guards know you and will they let you in. These guard against most threats except for someone who can impersonate someone else or insider threats who have access but want more access. In this case the "hackers" was given legitimate access to come in through the open gate. (A gate the admin specifically had to open and using the username and password the admin gave them.)
Once inside there is still security, but it is much, much less. On the average Windows machine at this point there is no security at all and even on a well secured Windows machine there are thousands of unpatched privilege escalation exploits. At this point on either a Mac OS X desktop or the average Linux machine a knowledgeable security person will be able to gain admin access. That is a sad fact, but it is the case for the vast majority of systems. Exceptions might be a locked down OpenBSD box running jails, an SELinux box, or some other specialized ultra-secure OS running virtual machines. Very few people run those machines as desktops and those that due generally don't have the best experience because they sacrifice a lot of usability to gain that level of security.
This "test" was no surprise to anyone with a clue. That is exactly what would be expected to happen. Also, some of the better security guys out there can definitely gain remote access to machines using unpublished vulnerabilities. If they really want in they will get into the average OS X or Linux box. So what are we talking about here? Well obviously this is still much better than Windows, but not impregnable. What it does is make you pretty safe from automated worms and your average script kiddie, which far outnumber the knowledgeable crackers out there.
Ideally, all desktop OS's would be locked down more tightly. They would do more security auditing and they would implement ACLs, VMs, or jails for all remote access and all applications. Some day perhaps they will. But for right now it is not a big concern, simply because market does not call for it. Not many people really have data that needs to be kept secure against experts and those that do have specialized OS's to use. Of course they can't run photoshop or World of Warcraft and the users would not trust their internet connection to talk to WoW servers anyway using all closed source. That is a task better allocated to a regular desktop, not a locked down, ultra-secure server. And that is what this "test" has shown. OS X is a desktop and if you bypass all the primary security on it, it will not stand up to a cracker from the inside like OpenBSD might. Of course anyone who really cares already knew that.
So Google copies data and the /. community supports them, But what if Bill G had started to copy deasktop data. The /. foums would melt from teh flames and anger. Hmmm - a little biased are we?
So long as the feature was off by default, I would not have any problem with MS distributing software that did the same thing. This whole article is mindless sensationalism. Workers e-mail company documents to their home accounts! Quick blame the authors of the e-mail programs. Nonsense. Google can't be responsible if users decide to start storing files on the free servers Google provides any more than if users decide to e-mail files to their Gmail accounts. Hell, Goggle even makes a corporate version of this program so sysadmins can deploy and control this functionality from a central point.
If you let your users install anything they want and change the settings to store files remotely and don't limit where they transfer files to and you don't enforce policies saying they can't do that, well I don't think Google is the biggest security problem with your network.
Uhh...Someone writing on a 500,000 viewer site for free is saying marketing is out of reach? (I think thats Slashdots readership),/i>
...except for several important items. One this is a forum with a purpose and random political campaigning will probably be correctly moderated off topic. Two, the number of people who will read any given comment and make decisions based upon that are very small. Third, I'm not a marketing expert and don't have the expertise to craft a proper marketing message.
If you object to something that our government does, there is a simple solution: Get someone else elected! w can anyone hear if you aren't willing to raise your voice?
This is a fine sentiment and vishnu knows many of us try. There are, however, some grim realities in the face of this sort of reform. Marketing works. Marketing is the loudest voice and it costs money. There is a reason companies and campaigns pay for it. The president who spent the most money on marketing has won every election as far back as we can easily record.
The money is not in the hands of the people. Most of the wealth in this country is concentrated into the hands of a small portion of the population, less than 10%. This becomes even more drastic as you figure in the amount of wealth (stocks) owned by less wealthy people but controlled by the wealthy few that are on the boards of those companies. Realistically, the wealthiest 10% of the country has so much more disposable funding that they can spend on marketing that they will be the loudest voice every time.
This wealth disparity is growing worse, not better and additional legislative barriers have been raised to prevent anyone not a republican or democrat from being elected to much of anything. In short things are going to get worse.
Given all of the above, our country is headed the same way as many historical peaks. At some point the people will get so much poorer that they will use force to take back a share of the wealth. This will be a revolution of some sort and it will be messy and painful. Afterwards, who knows what will be the result, but the chances of it being a well formed government for the people, created with altruistic motives by knowledgeable scholars and philosophers is pretty slim.
Am I the only one who finds it extremely dangerous that email is accepted as "evidence" in 2006 by people who can't begin to understand "this tech stuff"?
Sure e-mail can be faked, but most companies have records of what they send and receive. When one company says, "hey we have this e-mail from you" and the other company replies with "we never sent you that and coincidentally for some reason that whole day worth of e-mail has been deleted from our servers, but no other days" it looks very suspicious. Then when evidence is presented showing that second company intentionally deleted the records right after it was presented in court, well I'd say that is pretty good evidence that the e-mail is genuine.
If you want to stop anti-competitive practices, digital distribution needs to adopt the rules of radio: Download services should have the right to sell any digital recording now, and compensate artists afterwards.
Well, that might help with fair use if the RIAA can't specify what DRM is used, but I doubt that will ever fly. Also, this doesn't really address the abuse at hand, price collusion. What does it matter if Apple or Apple and 15 other places sell the song if the price of the song at all these places is artificially high?
I have a number of files that only Open Office would open and it does a much better job than Word, in general. I do have files it fails on as well, although I don't have the most recent version of OO these days as my Windows machine died and the mac version of OpenOffice is lagging far behind. I suppose I could fire up the GUI on NetBSD. Submitting most of the documents, however, is not an option due to the sensitive nature of the content. Thanks for the suggestion though.
Can anyone clear up exactly what OpenXML is? When I google it, I get vague references leading me to believe OpenXML is more of a container, and not Microsoft's specific document format. So, this sounds like another canard from Microsoft with the claim "open" obfuscating what is probably not.
MS is offering to license this format to people under particular terms and parts of this format are indeed binaries embedding in XML. It is also patent encumbered. The main objections to the licensing include restrictions making it unimplementable by GPLed programs and licensing for old versions expires as soon as MS releases a new version, thus providing no guarantee that future generations will be able to legally read the files. Basically it is MS trying to confuse the issue and claim their format is just as open as the Open Document, even though in reality it does not confer the benefits Open Document does.
Sure, you can argue that they aren't as "rich" as Word, PDF et al, but they're standard and they're open.
For that matter PDF is open too. No this basically a crusade against MS proprietary formats and I'm all for it. I have inherited Word files that already cannot be opened with any product available on the market today. Governments especially need to be encouraged to move all the data that belongs to the public into open file formats and one of the best ways to do that is to proscribe an open standard for government use.
Don't worry about other open formats, there will always be ways to convert them, but this is a good strategic move to stop the use of closed formats. One standard provides a unified front for everyone to collaborate on.
I find it funny how Microsoft is accussed of unfair business practices by bundling software with their operating system. They add basic functionality to their operating system and its considered anti-competitive. Apple does the same and it's considered a good thing.
That is because either you don't understand what a monopoly is and why they are forbidden from actions that ruin the market or you're being paid by MS to astroturf here. MS is a monopoly. Apple is not. Thus MS is forbidden from certain actions Apple is not. You see Apple has to make a better server in order to gain market share in the server space. To avoid breaking the law, MS has to do the same thing. But that is hard, so instead MS decided to tie their server and desktop together using secret protocols. This way, even though their server is slower, more expensive, has fewer features, is insecure, and is unstable, it still gains market share because it has the advantage of being tied to the desktop monopoly.
This is illegal for obvious reasons. It hurts the market and consumers end up paying more and getting less. Also, MS thus gains a second monopoly, which they can then use to gain a third and fourth etc., even though their products are inferior. Can you see how this is bad for everyone involved?
MS was convicted in several jurisdictions and part of their punishment was to stop doing it. That is to say, publish all the specs so Apple and Linux vendors and Sun can all compete evenly for the server space and so the cheapest, best product wins. This is what MS is trying to avoid doing. They don't want to have to compete based upon quality and price, they just want consumers to suck it up and pay them for crap.
I have zero sympathy for them too. They broke the law knowingly and in a gamble that it would make them more money than it cost in fines. So far they have been 100% right and made a ton of money by breaking the law. They continue to break the law by bundling and tying new products. It has cost companies billions of dollars, retarded progress in the industry, and put good, innovative companies out of business. Worse it has forced sysadmins around the world to deal with their crappy servers that they need to talk to their desktop.
And MS is laughing all the way to the bank. They need to be more than fined, they need to be broken up. It is the only punishment that will actually stop this crap and put the computing industry back on the path of innovation.
Regardless of the merits of the EU's case against MS, it's important that the trial be fair and appropriately handled and, if Microsoft has reasonable evidence to the point, they have the right to claim damages.
You seem to be operating under a misconception. The trial is over. Microsoft lost. This is Microsoft arguing over whether or not they are actually going to comply with the punishment they agreed they would comply with. Think, "Yeah I know I said I'd spend the 30 days in jail, but it might really cause problems for my drug dealing business. I think I'm going to just confine myself to my home and play video games for a month instead. Except Thursday, I need to go meet some Columbian guys at the airport Thursday."
I'm not sure you're understanding the previous poster. He/she is talking about control networks for botnets, not about distribution mechanisms. Bots and worms can be coded to look for particular filenames on P2P and get their commands from that source. Then they look for the next filename in their list. This is used to direct the bots, not to compromise them.
If you had bothered to read either the study you link to or the ones you reference you'll note that the majority of experimental studies show no difference between playing a video game and any other active task. While plenty of studies show more aggression versus a passive activity, like watching TV or sitting quietly, they aren't exactly normalized and there has been no evidence presented to show a link between video games and more violent personalities developing (twins studies etc.). What you do reference is studies who start with a presupposition and then cherry pick other writings and experiments to try to support a position.
In any case, I don't think you can argue that google search results such as you provided show the sum of work or literature on the subject or are readable as an objective, scientific look at the subject.
Jay-walking is against the law. Do you ALWAYS obey it even though it is a stupid law? Should you be shot in the leg after the first, second, or third offense to discourage you from doing it again? And I am not saying that the anti-trust act is stupid, I'm saying that declaring a corporation a monopoly and fining them because the OS THEY made comes with THEIR internet browser that is an integral part of the system and THEIR media player installed by default.
Stick to the topic. This is not about the browser, this is about the interfaces to the server OS. Bundling is illegal in almost every jurisdiction because it is a simple and easy way to use a monopoly to move into and take over new markets with products that are no better (and often worse) than the competition. Tying, is slightly more complex. The gist of it is, Windows server editions have an advantage over a Linux or Solaris box because they can speak all the secret protocols used to communicate with the desktop. This includes exchange, active directory, etc. As a result of this, Windows servers have an advantage based solely in the fact that they are made by the same company as Windows desktop. Windows servers are generally slower, less secure, less reliable, and can't multitask for crap, but they are tied to Windows desktop and Windows desktop OS's have a monopoly so everyone has to talk to them.
Thus MS was convicted, as they had been in the US and several other countries and as part of their punishment they were ordered to document all those secret interfaces by which their server was being illegally given an advantage. They are in the process of trying to weasel out of that. The reason: they know they can't compete in a fair market but they want to take over that market anyway and they don't mind breaking the law until someone manages to force them to stop.
If you'd like an explanation as to why bundling the browser and media player are illegal and bad for the industry (and can't already see the parallel) just ask, or go ahead and do a Google search. Antitrust law is very well explained many places online.
The long and short is they broke the law and it hurt everyone in the industry. I know a number of sysadmins who run Windows servers as well as Linux simply because they need something that can talk to exchange and active directory. Those servers usually only run one application, since Windows becomes unstable with multiple ones under load. They basically suck, but MS was paid for them anyway. How many billions of dollars did that suck out of countries around the globe? How many cool new technologies were not developed as people struggled to reverse engineer these secret protocols? How much manpower was wasted? How much did the computing industry suffer?
EU is trying to prop up OSS and European businesses because they dont[sic] like the idea that an American Company is the only productive option... Yes yes before i get flamed, i know linux has its place. But honeslty[sic] i have only seen people be productive with Linux in delevoper[sic] and server applicaitons[sic].
Do you even know what this whole thing is all about? MS broke the law by using their monopoly on desktop OS's to give an unfair advantage to their Web browser, media player, and server OS. That last item is the one of note here, since after they were convicted they agreed to fully document all the secret interfaces between their server and desktop OSs by which they were gaining market share with their inferior server OS. Market share gained because it had illegal advantages in dealing with their desktop OS.
This isn't about punishing MS for having a monopoly, it is about punishing them for using that monopoly to force inferior products upon consumers at overly high prices. This is about Windows Server editions being used over cheaper, more reliable, more secure, and more versatile Linux and Unix servers simply because they know the secret handshakes to talk to Windows desktop and all the features built into it.
To put it simply, MS broke the law and they did it knowingly. They built their whole business plan around breaking the law and betting that the courts would not punish them enough to make up for the profit. So far they have been completely correct and now after having been convicted they are trying to weasel our of one of the proscribed punishments. Hopefully they will not succeed.
Now i will sit back and watch the flaming begin because i ...gasp... defended an evil american corporation Microsoft on slashdot...what the hell was i thinking. Freedom of speech is an illusion your audiance[sic] gives. You can only freely say what they want to hear or they will string you up denounce you for having opposing views.
Hahahahaha! You seem a little unclear on the concept of free speech as well. You're free to say whatever you want, but anyone is also free to reply with why they disagree with you. Otherwise it would be free speech only for you and not for anyone else, huh? Anyway, what does the fact that they are an American company have to do with it? Most of the companies that benefit from this and are advising the EU are also American. Your nationalism is badly misplaced
That the information is incredibly easy to find? Do I need to teach you how to use google next? Or do you deny it's existence?
But the information is not easy to find. You did not provide the information asked for, or more specifically you provided it mixed with tons of other information that was not relevant.
Suing microsoft is about the dumbest thing in the world with all of the problems societies across the world face. Tax dollars and legislative time should be better spent on real issues not internet explorer and windows media.
The EU is not suing Microsoft. They are overseeing MS's punishment for breaking the law. You might as well argue "tax dollars should not be spent collecting fines from convicted litterers. Just because we went to the expense of trying them and finding them guilty there is no reason we should waste time actually getting the money from them or making sure they do their community service."
Microsoft intentionally broke the law for profit. They are still doing it. They were convicted of it in a number of jurisdictions. You don't think they should be punished for that? You don't think they should have to obey the laws? You don't think something should be done to discourage them from doing it again?
I'd like for Microsoft to win this, be eligible to sue the EU for several billion dollars more than what the EU can get off Microsoft, and then all sides play by the rules for the rest of the debacle.
What the hell are you talking about? MS built their business model around intentionally breaking the laws and once convicted of that are trying to avoid complying with the punishment the courts handed down. And they're doing the same thing in the US, where the DOJ appointed "watchdogs" have reported that MS has also failed to comply with what amounted to a slap on the wrist. It's as if you shoot someone, get convicted, but only given six months probation and a $500 fine because you pay off the judge, and then you don't even fulfill your probation terms.
The "rules" in this situation are the laws which MS is continuing to break and making a bundle doing so. They need to be broken up into multiple companies so this crap stops.
I've read that the problem is the EU is failing to disclose specifics on EXACTLY what kind of documentation is acceptable.
The EU asked for documentation that was complete enough that other companies could code to all the same interface that MS does as judged by several previously agreed upon parties. The first of those parties rejected the initial offering saying it was not usable or up to industry standards. Seeing as this person is someone MS picked to judge this, I don't see how they can find fault with his findings.
Since it would be illegal to publish all the communication in between MS and the EU council none of us can know for certain what is going on, but I think most of us can make some pretty good guesses. MS wants to provide the minimum available information to convince the EU that they have given them what they need. They probably don't have good info documenting this and instead of making it they gave them broken docs and then tried to rope them into an alternative to giving them the docs.
With hundreds of millions of dollars on the line you'd think they could hire some people to exhaustively document the APIs, and you'd be right. The problem is MS does not really want to do that because then they might have to compete on even ground for the server space and that is a fight they can't win with their currently inferior and more expensive product. So they delay and spread FUD while trying to pay off the right people. Even if they lose and have to pay the fines it might still be a good business move for them. The fines are a tiny portion of the profit from their monopoly in the EU and extending that into the server market illegally as they are now doing is a good way to protect that monopoly and expand it.
Did you follow and read the 972 pages of hits on scholar.google.com, also? Or did you just entirely miss the point?
The previous poster asked for the information that supported the statement. You provided a bunch of random links some pro some con and many that were neither. What point did you want me or anyone else to understand from this?
script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/s how_ads.js"
...instead of the appropriate ad.
I followed all of those links. Of them only two claimed actual experimental testing, the others were all non-scientific analysis of statistics of previous papers mostly by Anderson who seems to have a lot to say on this subject but to always start with what he is trying to prove and then cite other papers chosen through an unknown process to support it. Basically, pseudo scientific hogwash.
Of the two experimental papers one was pay to read and did not say what the results were. The other was a very small undergrad level study that did not have a control group to account for agitation level. People are more likely to react when they've just gotten done reacting quickly to a video game, hmmmm big surprise. The study did not even purport to study if video games caused more violence, but whether people agitated by playing violent video games versus people who played video golf were more likely to react based upon their gender.
Heh... Google scholar wins.
You know, you actually have to read the articles if you want to learn anything.