Surprise surprise, a European court decided to rob an American company of half a billion dollars, Language is a bitch if you can't use it properly. See "to rob" means "a: to deprive of something due, expected, or desired b: to withhold unjustly or injuriously" (merriam-webster). A court, being the place that finds on issues of just or unjust, doesn't "rob".
Yes, I know you didn't mean it literally, but only to evoke the emotion of injustice and pitty for the poor victim - which is exactly why I point it out. MS isn't a poor victim, but a legally convicted criminal - btw. in the US as much as in the EU.
after said company complied with order after absurd order to change its practices. The court says different. Last I checked, courts and not random/. users decide if a criminal complied with his probation conditions.
Though I do wonder what level of fine it would take for Microsoft to really change it's way of doing things 50% of their cash, with a promise that you take the other half if they don't shape up by the deadline.
Unfortunately, you can't do that anymore. Liberals may not win any elections, but they sure won one part of the "small, powerless government" agenda, and it ain't the "small" one. There's very little a government can do nowadays about large corporations. The problem, as others have pointed out, is that the justice system just takes too damn long. If a corporation can afford the fine, it can afford to simply wait out, because by the time the judgement comes down, it'll be mostly meaningless.
So fines don't cut it, unless you go to extremes like in my first sentence.
You need something equivalent to what we consider totally normal if the criminal is an individual: Lock him up during the trial, so he can't kill/rape/rob someone else in the meantime.
If MS were in danger of being shut down until the case is closed, I'm pretty sure they would be much more enthusiastic of following what's essentially their probation conditions.
Conversely, many times what users define as a need is a wish. Probably, yes. But the IT department is not who gets to decide which is which. As I said: It's the engine of modern companies, but not the driver. In many cases where a user said they needed a Mac to do a job in a Windows shop is usually the user asserting his wish as a need.
In many cases where a user said they needed a Mac to do a job in a Windows shop is usually the user asserting his wish as a need. That is your evaluation. I've been in that position. We've ordered a bunch of Macs for our department, because IT can't offer what we need. In theory everything is available on windos as well, but reality is different and getting things rolled out on windos that is in-the-box on the Macs we bought would've taken weeks if not months, when we needed it now to do our jobs.
Maybe someone in IT evaluated the same as you did, which meant I had to talk to the CEO and the head of IT in order to sort things out. Time wasted, time of people who are too well paid to waste time on crap like this.
Sure, have someone with a clue decide. But that someone can't be the IT department. Because in real life, the IT department has needs and wishes, too. And one of the most common wishes is to not support anything they aren't already familiar with. Hey, I've been on both sides of the fence. If my server is LAMP and you want ASP, my first response will be if you can't code in PHP like any decent human. Windos admins are the same, maybe more so since a 90% market share lets you to believe the world revolves around your chosen OS. And yet, your job is to enable other people in the company, not make life difficult for them. So someone must decide what is wish and what is need, and that someone is not you.
Allowing people to bring in their personal laptops is a bad bad idea. For some reasons, yes. But security and reliability should not be among them. If your network goes down because I plugged in a Mac, then your friggin' network is broken. A properly designed and configured ethernet doesn't care and isn't impacted, the worst that should happen should affect me and me only (i.e. I can't connect to anything else). Same for security. If your defenses are penetrated by the simple act of getting physical access to your network, then you should fire your security dude. Physical access to a company network is amongst the most simple barriers a serious attacker will take in literally minutes. Friends of mine do consulting in regards to social engineering attacks. If your network is open to "insiders" by design, then it is open to anyone in reality.
Procedures can support and enhance security and reliability, they can't replace either.
More importantly, if you look at the literature and ISO standards, 90% of the procedures are not for the regular employee, but for the IT personal. With good reason. You can't expect the regular employee to follow procedures more complicated than "always lock your screen when you leave your desk". As far as I'm concerned, I don't even rely on them following that.
So people should just be allowed to connect whatever they want to a network? And install whatever they want on their computers? You mix up two things, and I probably didn't make clear enough what exactly I meant.
What I meant is: If your security relies on people doing as you say, then your security is broken. Your security (and reliability, etc.) should rely on technical measures that ensure that people either a) can not do harmful things or b) whatever they do they can't damage the system.
So your network and your OS should disallow certain operations. If your "security" consists of the manager telling his people to not do these things, but the system allows them, then your security is broken.
Sorry, the function of IT is to make sure that the user's computing needs are met, not the user's wishes. The user's needs are defined by their job function and not their OS or software preference. IT is there to make sure that the user can do his or her job properly where a computer is required. I agree on that. The point is that what the IT qualifies as a "wish" very often is a need. Way too many IT people are too arrogant to realize that the people doing the work are often the ones with the capability to decide which tools are best.
We'll scan a person with one of these things and tell what they're actually thinking. Weird way to tell us that they're 20 years or so ahead of current neuroscience, which still doesn't entirely know how we think, much less what.
Obviously you were never in charge of an IT organization. These control freaks are attempting to keep the business network running reliably. They are responsible in ensuring that computer systems are able to meet the needs of the business. If their network can not withstand an unknown device connecting to the network, then their network design is broken. If they need restrictions and procedures in order to keep their systems secure and stable, then their system design is broken.
Sorry, I'm just the resident security freak at a major telco.
Finally:
If they aren't there to grant the users' wishes, then their self-definition is broken. Contrary to what many of us here believe, IT runs a company, which means it's the engine - not the driver.
I don't get the article. What's he talking about? OS X has already beaten Vista - it's the better product. Why should I care about any other interpretation of "to beat"?
Heck, if you are part of the current generation, you will probably be a millionaire at some point before you die. It's not just about money, it's about assets, which include retirement. Where I live, we consider someone with money, or at least liquid financial means, of > 1 mio. to be a millionaire, not everyone who owns a house and two cars, but if our definitions vary, let's shoot for the super-rich, which TFA was about anyways.
I find it QUITE surprising that the Wii can so handily outsell the 360 when its game library is, all things considered, horribly outmatched. Or maybe your assumption is false? I don't think the 360 library is impressive. If you look at it with non-nerdy-eyes, it's essentially the same 5 or 6 games with different graphics under different names. The Wii doesn't need 25 different FPS titles to succeed, because it has everygreens like Wii Sports and quite a few people play mostly that and are happy.
If these actually were honest information. Most of the stuff printed on boxes these days, especially in food, is at best misleading. "Natural strawberry flavour", for example, has nothing whatsoever in common with strawberries, except tasting like that. Most likely, it's really fungus. Likewise, "no preservatives" usually has a (*) behind it and very, very small print at the bottom saying "according to the law" or something, which simply means they used preservatives that aren't on the list (yet), or are for whatever technical or bureaucratic reason not considered preservatives.
And so on, the list is practically endless. Even the pictures are misleading. There is a whole special branch of photography dealing with food and how to present it optimally. Yes, you can see what's in there, but it appears bigger and more, and it is carefully tuned to manipulate you.
And yes, I quite do count those huge signs as ads. And I do hate them. They're a horrible destruction of scenery. A smaller sign next to the nearest exit would serve the same informative purpose.
But reading Bill Gates history, I believe there was a definite element of luck there - right place at the right time - along with some cunning to get where they are at. Having rich, influential and well-connected parents probably didn't hurt, either.
Why have we as a society become so filled with entitlement and laziness? If you have the money, you can get it. If you don't have the money, work for it. These guys were nobody's once upon a time as well... it's not like the American dream is dead, it's the American dreamer that's dead. The "American Dream" is, and always has been, a scam. The actual number of people who really worked their way up from dishwasher to millionaire are smaller than the number of people who became millionaires through the lottery, and we all learned the chances of that in highschool.
So in short, we stopped following the dream when we realized it's just a dream, and the waking world is run by different rules.
If it were anyone but MS, I'd assume it was a countermove to Storm or some other large botnet (you don't think Storm's the only one, do you?) which disables or subverts the usual automatic update process.
Knowing this is from MS, I wouldn't be surprised if it's WGA or some DRM crap.
I agree, in that very limited sense it might be useful. I wouldn't call gas price signs advertisement, as long as they are actually at the gas station. Their size is probably more caused by the fact that people should be able to read them while driving by then by advertisement value.
I don't agree on general "it exists" or "it costs this much" advertisement. I have one of those in my (physical) mail box every other day, and they all go to the trash can without a second glance.
I still prefer getting my info on, say, which new games exist, from an independent source than from the manufacturer's advertisement, which never tells me just that "it exists", but also usually that it's the best thing since sliced bread, will cure cancer and bring world peace.
But you have one major failure in your logic. WoW isn't stealing MMO players away from other competitive MMOs
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know either way, which is why I worry a little.
Personally, I think zero is the proper amount of copy-protection.
A good cracked copy will have all of your stuff removed or disabled. In other words, it will be more convenient for the user. Is that the message you want to give? That copying your software gives you a better experience than buying it?
If that's an option, you should look for a solution in the opposite direction: Added value for the honest customer. Add a quick-reference sheet into the package. Free support (at least for a limited time). A good, printed manual. Stuff that makes a bought copy worth more than a cracked copy.
But yet, we want/need some amount of advertising... Why?
It doesn't serve the information purpose you mention. Advertisement is, almost by definition, biased and one-sided. I'd very much prefer comparisons, reviews and independent suggestions.
I, personally, very, very seldomly gain any information from advertisement. When I'm looking for something, a search engine works much better. For news about new gadgets, games, etc. I prefer (online) magazines to ads.
Frankly, I am convinced there is no legitimate use for advertisement, in the sense that it makes a positive contribution to society. Everything that ads do can be replaced by better independent alternatives.
It'd probably be in the best interest of consumers to find a good middle ground. Why?
If your business model relies on advertisement, then your business model is broken. Why? Because you are selling something that you do not own: Viewers' eyes. If your illusion about controlling them gets shattered by real life, maybe you should blame your false assumption instead of real life?
If the website designer has to pay for bits each time you view their website without viewing their banner ads, are you engaged in theft? Is this right? No, it is wrong.
Merriam-Webster:
theft: 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
Which means in order for it to be theft, it would have to meet the following requirements: * It must be illegal * It must be taking and removing of personal property * It must be intended to deprive the rightful owner of said property
Blocking ads satisfies none of these requirements even remotely. So whatever you so, however much you dislike it, it is not theft.
And no, this is not nit-picking. Calling things by their proper terms is a requirement of a proper evaluation process.
Or are you too busy playing to care? No, like most non-WoW-players, I'm too busy caring about whether or not WoW is good or bad for me (as a player and consumer) and the industry.
Certainly the size and money involved allows Blizzard to try things nobody else could afford. On the other hand, in markets in general and creative markets specifically, too much concentration on one offer (no matter how good it is) reduces the progress of everyone else.
Why do you think this is illegal? What country did it originate in and what country is it controlled in? Just because the US might have a law that makes this activity illegal does not mean anyone else cares. Why do you assume I'm from the US or talking about US law?
Remotely taking control of someone else's machine without their consent is a crime in every country that has passed computer-specific crime laws. In most countries where no such laws (yet) exist, it will probably violate some other applicable law.
Common sense dictates that the more unlikely claim is the one that needs to be proven first. So please name the eastern european country where unauthorized access is legal.
Makes you wonder why the FBI and other police forces have enough resources to go after Joe sharing the latest CD release, but apparently not enough to do something about what probably is the largest computer crime in history.
I guess the answer has something to do with priorities. Which is exactly what I think the problem is.
No trademarks as names. How many words are not trademarked? There's an awful lot of trademarks out there if you take every word that's a trademark for something in some country.
How the hell does 90% of the country end up being so far in debt and vulnerable to being jobless even for a few months? Again, you ignore reality. Anything of this kind (i.e. that causes resistance) is introduced to those who can fight back the least first. Do you think managers or even department heads will be chipped first? Do you really believe the first to receive a mandatory (aka "or you can work somewhere else") implant will be the important thinking people that actually can leave?
I deal with the CEO and HR-head level daily. I think I have a fairly good understanding of how they think and work. The uncomfortable, bad things are never introduced at the top, always at the bottom.
Legislation aside, the fact that we are afraid to come to terms with our debt only means that the debt is too high! Once again I come back to my "real world" comment. Over here, a house costs a quarter to half a million Euros. That is way more than any normal person has in their savings account. The only way to realistically buy a house is on mortgage. If you put your mortgage rates so low that you can pay them for, say, half a year from your savings, that means accumulated interests will make it twice as expensive. The longer you pay, the lower the monthly rate, the more expensive it gets, all in all. So you put the rate at something that you can still afford even if your income falls or your expenses rise. But there is no possible way you can pay a mortgage from unemployment benefits, for example.
I think that most people being able to fuck off for a few months and still not starve would scare any employer out of pushing big-brother tactics much better than legislation. Absolutely. That's why I am a big fan of the various base income proposals. (not sure what the proper english term is, the basic idea being that every citizen gets a fixed income per month, no matter what he does or even if he does anything. No conditions. Not on top of unemployment benefits or other social stuff, but replacing it. Can be re-financed easily by a tax reform.)
Obviously, that's also why much of big business is lobbying against it. The official reason they give being that it's too expensive. The real reason - well, we both know it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I know you didn't mean it literally, but only to evoke the emotion of injustice and pitty for the poor victim - which is exactly why I point it out. MS isn't a poor victim, but a legally convicted criminal - btw. in the US as much as in the EU. after said company complied with order after absurd order to change its practices. The court says different. Last I checked, courts and not random
Unfortunately, you can't do that anymore. Liberals may not win any elections, but they sure won one part of the "small, powerless government" agenda, and it ain't the "small" one. There's very little a government can do nowadays about large corporations. The problem, as others have pointed out, is that the justice system just takes too damn long. If a corporation can afford the fine, it can afford to simply wait out, because by the time the judgement comes down, it'll be mostly meaningless.
So fines don't cut it, unless you go to extremes like in my first sentence.
You need something equivalent to what we consider totally normal if the criminal is an individual: Lock him up during the trial, so he can't kill/rape/rob someone else in the meantime.
If MS were in danger of being shut down until the case is closed, I'm pretty sure they would be much more enthusiastic of following what's essentially their probation conditions.
In many cases where a user said they needed a Mac to do a job in a Windows shop is usually the user asserting his wish as a need. In many cases where a user said they needed a Mac to do a job in a Windows shop is usually the user asserting his wish as a need. That is your evaluation. I've been in that position. We've ordered a bunch of Macs for our department, because IT can't offer what we need. In theory everything is available on windos as well, but reality is different and getting things rolled out on windos that is in-the-box on the Macs we bought would've taken weeks if not months, when we needed it now to do our jobs.
Maybe someone in IT evaluated the same as you did, which meant I had to talk to the CEO and the head of IT in order to sort things out. Time wasted, time of people who are too well paid to waste time on crap like this.
Sure, have someone with a clue decide. But that someone can't be the IT department. Because in real life, the IT department has needs and wishes, too. And one of the most common wishes is to not support anything they aren't already familiar with. Hey, I've been on both sides of the fence. If my server is LAMP and you want ASP, my first response will be if you can't code in PHP like any decent human. Windos admins are the same, maybe more so since a 90% market share lets you to believe the world revolves around your chosen OS. And yet, your job is to enable other people in the company, not make life difficult for them. So someone must decide what is wish and what is need, and that someone is not you. Allowing people to bring in their personal laptops is a bad bad idea. For some reasons, yes. But security and reliability should not be among them. If your network goes down because I plugged in a Mac, then your friggin' network is broken. A properly designed and configured ethernet doesn't care and isn't impacted, the worst that should happen should affect me and me only (i.e. I can't connect to anything else).
Same for security. If your defenses are penetrated by the simple act of getting physical access to your network, then you should fire your security dude. Physical access to a company network is amongst the most simple barriers a serious attacker will take in literally minutes. Friends of mine do consulting in regards to social engineering attacks. If your network is open to "insiders" by design, then it is open to anyone in reality.
Procedures can support and enhance security and reliability, they can't replace either.
More importantly, if you look at the literature and ISO standards, 90% of the procedures are not for the regular employee, but for the IT personal. With good reason. You can't expect the regular employee to follow procedures more complicated than "always lock your screen when you leave your desk". As far as I'm concerned, I don't even rely on them following that.
What I meant is: If your security relies on people doing as you say, then your security is broken. Your security (and reliability, etc.) should rely on technical measures that ensure that people either a) can not do harmful things or b) whatever they do they can't damage the system.
So your network and your OS should disallow certain operations. If your "security" consists of the manager telling his people to not do these things, but the system allows them, then your security is broken. Sorry, the function of IT is to make sure that the user's computing needs are met, not the user's wishes. The user's needs are defined by their job function and not their OS or software preference. IT is there to make sure that the user can do his or her job properly where a computer is required. I agree on that. The point is that what the IT qualifies as a "wish" very often is a need. Way too many IT people are too arrogant to realize that the people doing the work are often the ones with the capability to decide which tools are best.
If they need restrictions and procedures in order to keep their systems secure and stable, then their system design is broken.
Sorry, I'm just the resident security freak at a major telco.
Finally:
If they aren't there to grant the users' wishes, then their self-definition is broken. Contrary to what many of us here believe, IT runs a company, which means it's the engine - not the driver.
I don't get the article. What's he talking about? OS X has already beaten Vista - it's the better product. Why should I care about any other interpretation of "to beat"?
If these actually were honest information. Most of the stuff printed on boxes these days, especially in food, is at best misleading. "Natural strawberry flavour", for example, has nothing whatsoever in common with strawberries, except tasting like that. Most likely, it's really fungus.
Likewise, "no preservatives" usually has a (*) behind it and very, very small print at the bottom saying "according to the law" or something, which simply means they used preservatives that aren't on the list (yet), or are for whatever technical or bureaucratic reason not considered preservatives.
And so on, the list is practically endless. Even the pictures are misleading. There is a whole special branch of photography dealing with food and how to present it optimally. Yes, you can see what's in there, but it appears bigger and more, and it is carefully tuned to manipulate you.
And yes, I quite do count those huge signs as ads. And I do hate them. They're a horrible destruction of scenery. A smaller sign next to the nearest exit would serve the same informative purpose.
So in short, we stopped following the dream when we realized it's just a dream, and the waking world is run by different rules.
I'd really like to know the purpose.
If it were anyone but MS, I'd assume it was a countermove to Storm or some other large botnet (you don't think Storm's the only one, do you?) which disables or subverts the usual automatic update process.
Knowing this is from MS, I wouldn't be surprised if it's WGA or some DRM crap.
I agree, in that very limited sense it might be useful. I wouldn't call gas price signs advertisement, as long as they are actually at the gas station. Their size is probably more caused by the fact that people should be able to read them while driving by then by advertisement value.
I don't agree on general "it exists" or "it costs this much" advertisement. I have one of those in my (physical) mail box every other day, and they all go to the trash can without a second glance.
I still prefer getting my info on, say, which new games exist, from an independent source than from the manufacturer's advertisement, which never tells me just that "it exists", but also usually that it's the best thing since sliced bread, will cure cancer and bring world peace.
Personally, I think zero is the proper amount of copy-protection.
A good cracked copy will have all of your stuff removed or disabled. In other words, it will be more convenient for the user. Is that the message you want to give? That copying your software gives you a better experience than buying it?
If that's an option, you should look for a solution in the opposite direction: Added value for the honest customer. Add a quick-reference sheet into the package. Free support (at least for a limited time). A good, printed manual. Stuff that makes a bought copy worth more than a cracked copy.
It doesn't serve the information purpose you mention. Advertisement is, almost by definition, biased and one-sided. I'd very much prefer comparisons, reviews and independent suggestions.
I, personally, very, very seldomly gain any information from advertisement. When I'm looking for something, a search engine works much better. For news about new gadgets, games, etc. I prefer (online) magazines to ads.
Frankly, I am convinced there is no legitimate use for advertisement, in the sense that it makes a positive contribution to society. Everything that ads do can be replaced by better independent alternatives.
I can't help but contrast that bullshit with this:
Advertisement is Theft.
You see, it's
* my bandwidth
* my computer
* my screen
* my eyeballs
* my time and attention
Ads take a part of each of those away from me for a short time.
If your business model relies on advertisement, then your business model is broken. Why? Because you are selling something that you do not own: Viewers' eyes. If your illusion about controlling them gets shattered by real life, maybe you should blame your false assumption instead of real life?
Merriam-Webster:
theft:
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
Which means in order for it to be theft, it would have to meet the following requirements:
* It must be illegal
* It must be taking and removing of personal property
* It must be intended to deprive the rightful owner of said property
Blocking ads satisfies none of these requirements even remotely. So whatever you so, however much you dislike it, it is not theft.
And no, this is not nit-picking. Calling things by their proper terms is a requirement of a proper evaluation process.
Certainly the size and money involved allows Blizzard to try things nobody else could afford. On the other hand, in markets in general and creative markets specifically, too much concentration on one offer (no matter how good it is) reduces the progress of everyone else.
I'd rather have more choice.
Remotely taking control of someone else's machine without their consent is a crime in every country that has passed computer-specific crime laws. In most countries where no such laws (yet) exist, it will probably violate some other applicable law.
Common sense dictates that the more unlikely claim is the one that needs to be proven first. So please name the eastern european country where unauthorized access is legal.
Makes you wonder why the FBI and other police forces have enough resources to go after Joe sharing the latest CD release, but apparently not enough to do something about what probably is the largest computer crime in history.
I guess the answer has something to do with priorities. Which is exactly what I think the problem is.
I deal with the CEO and HR-head level daily. I think I have a fairly good understanding of how they think and work. The uncomfortable, bad things are never introduced at the top, always at the bottom. Legislation aside, the fact that we are afraid to come to terms with our debt only means that the debt is too high! Once again I come back to my "real world" comment. Over here, a house costs a quarter to half a million Euros. That is way more than any normal person has in their savings account. The only way to realistically buy a house is on mortgage. If you put your mortgage rates so low that you can pay them for, say, half a year from your savings, that means accumulated interests will make it twice as expensive. The longer you pay, the lower the monthly rate, the more expensive it gets, all in all.
So you put the rate at something that you can still afford even if your income falls or your expenses rise. But there is no possible way you can pay a mortgage from unemployment benefits, for example. I think that most people being able to fuck off for a few months and still not starve would scare any employer out of pushing big-brother tactics much better than legislation. Absolutely. That's why I am a big fan of the various base income proposals. (not sure what the proper english term is, the basic idea being that every citizen gets a fixed income per month, no matter what he does or even if he does anything. No conditions. Not on top of unemployment benefits or other social stuff, but replacing it. Can be re-financed easily by a tax reform.)
Obviously, that's also why much of big business is lobbying against it. The official reason they give being that it's too expensive. The real reason - well, we both know it.