That easy, are you sure? If the police can intercept your e-mail, then most likely it will become forbidden to encrypt it - or the allowed encryption level will be far too weak to be usable. Or... if they happen to intercept your e-mail and they can't figure out the encryption, they may hold it against you and send you to court. And so on. The possibilities (of awful stuff happening) are endless. And once again, the whole mass of citizens will suffer in order to get protected. Meanwhile, crime and terrorism will have no problems finding ways to circumvent all this protection crap. So basically, you haven't got any more protection, you have no privacy left and what's more, you voted for all that. Yay.
The only reason Microsoft would ever do that, would be if they wanted to try this path to kill OSS worldwide (which, granted, may be in their agenda). But I don't see this happening, because so far, OSS has been surviving thanks to the developers more so than thanks to the mooing end-users. Therefore, not the typical target for MS...
When will people get a clue? Most end-users are "customers", and customers don't care about OSS in general. They just want a product that works, sold to them at a "reasonable" price. MS knows how to do this, and their financial results show that. Why would they do any differently?
For the "freak" audience, there has been a project called ReactOS http://www.reactos.org/. I don't really see it having a future though. It's been there for years, isn't yet ready for any kind of serious use and is trying to "emulate" years old versions of Windows. It would take ages to become a viable alternative.
Anyway, other than to kill OSS, I really don't know what MS would earn from going Open Source. Open Source companies usually make their money on service, but MS is not providing any service other than selling software. Ok, it's not quite true, but I'm pretty sure they would go bankrupt pretty quickly if they concentrated on service only.
not by the product's inner value. Estimate your target audience, multiply by license fees and see if your goals as a corporation are met. I think it's as simple as that.
Especially when the end is not met. Here people seem to care more about the means than about the end. Yup. For instance, has it been proven that this names collection is useful? Has it saved anyone yet? I doubt it. Highly.
Good point too. And actually, not to change subjects, but this is one of the "cons" arguments against death penalty. Most "heavy" criminals are not afraid of dying. So they just don't care whether they risk death penalty or not...
Terrorists will have no problem finding ways to hide their data or use encryption schemes that no one knows about. Giving away some "keys" implies using RSA or other mainstream encryption method. What about other methods? It's not like there isn't any. And facing a new encryption method, there could be nothing at all to give to the police. Meanwhile, "regular" citizens will lose a major freedom. When will someone in charge get a clue?
It just looks like terrorists are actually beginning to win: they are slowly but surely changing our western societies of freedom and democracy to totalitarian regimes. And we even think it's all our own ideas. Sad. Very sad.
Make OSs and apps that actually *help* spyware/adware diffusion.
Now wait until hardware prices go down to a level where buying a new computer is more cost-effective/less of a hassle than cleaning/securing the current one.
Every time a new computer is sold, a Windows license fee goes right in MS's pocket. At least for over 90% of them.
By so decreasing an average computer's lifespan, you can push more and more power-hungry apps on the market. You know that enough of your target audience will have the latest technology to run them on.
Gradually lower people's expectations on security and, yes, products lifespan.
Something that I think is interesting to notice: a so-called feature that is of absolutely *no interest* to the end-user (who, guess what, is the actual customer). Isn't that weird that some company can pull off this kind of crap? Adding features to a product that are in fact against the customer's own interest? What does it add for the customer? Annoyance and no added benefit. How can Microsoft get away with that, commercially speaking?
My take on this is that they do not care much about the end-user of their products. They seem to care more about all the companies that they can work with, directly or indirectly, and which probably make them a lot more money at the end of the day. To me, this explains all the hype around DRM, and also all the security issues that revolved around Internet Explorer. These actually benefit to some. But the "some" are not the end customers...
You know what? This is reminding me of what the TV media has become. The end-user (people actually watching TV) don't directly make the TV channels any money. This is all indirect through advertisement and such... so the end-user matters a lot less than with other types of businesses. As long as there many to watch, it's all good. And I see the Windows phenomenon as exactly similar to that...
Actually, I think most of the motherboards can support 2.88 MB floppy drives, it's just a BIOS setting. It's been there for as long as I can remember. Whether you need a specific floppy drive for that to work, I don't know for sure. You need specific floppy disks though. If I'm not mistaken, 2.88 MB floppy disks were a japanese standard and never caught on in the western world...
You're going a little too far, but the idea is there. This is not exactly about money, in my opinion. We live in a sort of society where people's only purpose is not just to serve profits, but to serve others. We are all slaves of one another; with some that are just a bit more slave than others. I think that's pretty much it. Instead of a society composed of individuals, we have built societies of institutionalized slavery - with the illusion of freedom and uniqueness. The very fact that we have to pay huge taxes which will only serve others shows the spirit (and that you can eventually land in jail if you don't pay them). Instead of cooperating and helping one another, we are just slaves of the system. Money is just a by-product of that spirit, methinks.
The comparison with Hare Krishnas (the spelling in the article is wrong) is lame.
Good point. Sounds like the guy wanted to find a quick-and-dirty way of illustrating his speech rather than giving it some more thought.
There are a lot of things the money can't buy
Definitely. Actually, it's quite easy to explain why the most brilliant OSS people don't directly do it for money. It's quite obvious that you're more likely to do a very good job for an extended period of time if you are actually *not* forced to do it. If this is your daily, paid, employed job, the motivation tends to go down as you are forced to do it. That's why you can find so many people doing really great things as a hobby, that they would never do in their actual job. 'Hobby' is not a demeaning notion... Why? Creativity (of which you need a lot when developing software, and other similar stuff) is hindered by obligations. It just doesn't add up. Just think of it that way: are you going to ask a musician: "write me a song right now or I'll get you fired and you'll end up with nothing" and expect him to write a good song? I wouldn't. That doesn't work this way. Likewise, OSS people are artists. Making money off your art can be a very good feeling, but being forced to do so usually makes you quit - or you end up producing garbarge just to be able to eat.
Have you really listened to the sound clips? If your "listening skills" have become so bad that you think it's worth a real guitarist, then you may be the one who could use a robot ear.
Would you really trust statistics on spam coming from an online marketing company (clickz.com)? Come on! To me, but that may just be me (I don't think so), this kind of marketing sites are responsible for a huge amount of spam... Figures coming from a respected computer security company: Sophos (sophos.com), which you mention, are in my opinion more to be trusted.
Anyway, of course China is not the top spammer for now; and here is my hypothesis on that. If you closely look at the figures, you realize that the top spammers are the countries that are the wealthiest, have the most economic activity and, most of all, have the most agressive marketing strategies. I think that really is as simple as that, since, in my opinion (and in the studies of many people on the topic), most of all the spam is actually used for business reasons...
Sunscreen has become popular exactly because people tend not to be moderate and get way too much sun exposure, especially on the beach. Suggesting not to use suncreen at all is not only misleading, it's just plain stupid, all the more since people usually don't use sunscreen when they aren't going to the beach/mountain/skiing, so all you need to get moderate amounts of sun exposure is to get out at least a few minutes a day without putting sunscreen all over yourself. I don't know a lot of people who don't do that.
In conclusion, I think this study is pretty useless. Pretty much everyone knows that getting a bit of direct sunlight often enough *is* good for your health. You should still use sunscreen if you're going to get *a lot* of it. Skin cancer is not fun.
The future of computers, even embedded ones, is with Windows.
He knows better than anyone what Windows is really worth, especially in terms of security.
He doesn't want any hazardous device inside his brain.
However, if there is market for such implants, he will probably not be against providing the world with a shrink-down Windows version for them. As long as it's only implanted in others, not him.
And I'm not even sure it has gotten any worse than it once was. I tend to think we just notice it more and more, only because we get to read more and more people from more and more varied backgrounds and origins than we used to as the use of the internet grows... I'm under the impression than we are just beginning to see a problem that we were ignoring before - the very reason being that written communication is becoming more and more important nowadays for all classes of people... whereas the huge majority of people would never use anything else than spoken language for their everyday needs...
Slashdot Mirror
That easy, are you sure? If the police can intercept your e-mail, then most likely it will become forbidden to encrypt it - or the allowed encryption level will be far too weak to be usable. Or... if they happen to intercept your e-mail and they can't figure out the encryption, they may hold it against you and send you to court. And so on. The possibilities (of awful stuff happening) are endless. And once again, the whole mass of citizens will suffer in order to get protected. Meanwhile, crime and terrorism will have no problems finding ways to circumvent all this protection crap. So basically, you haven't got any more protection, you have no privacy left and what's more, you voted for all that. Yay.
Only 33% off for a book you can't use past 5 months and that is not even paper? That's just plain stealing to me. I would NEVER go for that, never.
Any "academic" user using Word should not call themselves academic. The real ones use LaTeX. ;-) LaTeX allows you to do everything you want, and more.
The only reason Microsoft would ever do that, would be if they wanted to try this path to kill OSS worldwide (which, granted, may be in their agenda). But I don't see this happening, because so far, OSS has been surviving thanks to the developers more so than thanks to the mooing end-users. Therefore, not the typical target for MS...
When will people get a clue? Most end-users are "customers", and customers don't care about OSS in general. They just want a product that works, sold to them at a "reasonable" price. MS knows how to do this, and their financial results show that. Why would they do any differently?
For the "freak" audience, there has been a project called ReactOS http://www.reactos.org/. I don't really see it having a future though. It's been there for years, isn't yet ready for any kind of serious use and is trying to "emulate" years old versions of Windows. It would take ages to become a viable alternative.
Anyway, other than to kill OSS, I really don't know what MS would earn from going Open Source. Open Source companies usually make their money on service, but MS is not providing any service other than selling software. Ok, it's not quite true, but I'm pretty sure they would go bankrupt pretty quickly if they concentrated on service only.
Yeah, but Longhorn, really? I mean, uh, realllly? Why not "Windows Cow" instead? Might be more appropriate after all.
not by the product's inner value. Estimate your target audience, multiply by license fees and see if your goals as a corporation are met. I think it's as simple as that.
Especially when the end is not met. Here people seem to care more about the means than about the end. Yup. For instance, has it been proven that this names collection is useful? Has it saved anyone yet? I doubt it. Highly.
That being said, and all jokes aside, maybe the overall quality of their software would improve if they outsourced more. ;-)
Good point too. And actually, not to change subjects, but this is one of the "cons" arguments against death penalty. Most "heavy" criminals are not afraid of dying. So they just don't care whether they risk death penalty or not...
Terrorists will have no problem finding ways to hide their data or use encryption schemes that no one knows about. Giving away some "keys" implies using RSA or other mainstream encryption method. What about other methods? It's not like there isn't any. And facing a new encryption method, there could be nothing at all to give to the police. Meanwhile, "regular" citizens will lose a major freedom. When will someone in charge get a clue?
It just looks like terrorists are actually beginning to win: they are slowly but surely changing our western societies of freedom and democracy to totalitarian regimes. And we even think it's all our own ideas. Sad. Very sad.
He was also responsible for the Hiroshima bombing.
yet another dupe... :D
Indeed. Plus, given the actual cost of OLED displays, this just isn't realistic. The keyboard would cost more than the computer it's attached to...
Finally! It all becomes very obvious.
Something that I think is interesting to notice: a so-called feature that is of absolutely *no interest* to the end-user (who, guess what, is the actual customer). Isn't that weird that some company can pull off this kind of crap? Adding features to a product that are in fact against the customer's own interest? What does it add for the customer? Annoyance and no added benefit. How can Microsoft get away with that, commercially speaking?
My take on this is that they do not care much about the end-user of their products. They seem to care more about all the companies that they can work with, directly or indirectly, and which probably make them a lot more money at the end of the day. To me, this explains all the hype around DRM, and also all the security issues that revolved around Internet Explorer. These actually benefit to some. But the "some" are not the end customers...
You know what? This is reminding me of what the TV media has become. The end-user (people actually watching TV) don't directly make the TV channels any money. This is all indirect through advertisement and such... so the end-user matters a lot less than with other types of businesses. As long as there many to watch, it's all good. And I see the Windows phenomenon as exactly similar to that...
Actually, I think most of the motherboards can support 2.88 MB floppy drives, it's just a BIOS setting. It's been there for as long as I can remember. Whether you need a specific floppy drive for that to work, I don't know for sure. You need specific floppy disks though. If I'm not mistaken, 2.88 MB floppy disks were a japanese standard and never caught on in the western world...
You're going a little too far, but the idea is there. This is not exactly about money, in my opinion. We live in a sort of society where people's only purpose is not just to serve profits, but to serve others. We are all slaves of one another; with some that are just a bit more slave than others. I think that's pretty much it. Instead of a society composed of individuals, we have built societies of institutionalized slavery - with the illusion of freedom and uniqueness. The very fact that we have to pay huge taxes which will only serve others shows the spirit (and that you can eventually land in jail if you don't pay them). Instead of cooperating and helping one another, we are just slaves of the system. Money is just a by-product of that spirit, methinks.
Good point. Sounds like the guy wanted to find a quick-and-dirty way of illustrating his speech rather than giving it some more thought.
There are a lot of things the money can't buyDefinitely. Actually, it's quite easy to explain why the most brilliant OSS people don't directly do it for money. It's quite obvious that you're more likely to do a very good job for an extended period of time if you are actually *not* forced to do it. If this is your daily, paid, employed job, the motivation tends to go down as you are forced to do it. That's why you can find so many people doing really great things as a hobby, that they would never do in their actual job. 'Hobby' is not a demeaning notion... Why? Creativity (of which you need a lot when developing software, and other similar stuff) is hindered by obligations. It just doesn't add up. Just think of it that way: are you going to ask a musician: "write me a song right now or I'll get you fired and you'll end up with nothing" and expect him to write a good song? I wouldn't. That doesn't work this way. Likewise, OSS people are artists. Making money off your art can be a very good feeling, but being forced to do so usually makes you quit - or you end up producing garbarge just to be able to eat.
Have you really listened to the sound clips? If your "listening skills" have become so bad that you think it's worth a real guitarist, then you may be the one who could use a robot ear.
The EU can make decisions outside of any lobbying, the recent decision on software patents has shown that...
Would you really trust statistics on spam coming from an online marketing company (clickz.com)? Come on! To me, but that may just be me (I don't think so), this kind of marketing sites are responsible for a huge amount of spam... Figures coming from a respected computer security company: Sophos (sophos.com), which you mention, are in my opinion more to be trusted.
Anyway, of course China is not the top spammer for now; and here is my hypothesis on that. If you closely look at the figures, you realize that the top spammers are the countries that are the wealthiest, have the most economic activity and, most of all, have the most agressive marketing strategies. I think that really is as simple as that, since, in my opinion (and in the studies of many people on the topic), most of all the spam is actually used for business reasons...
The study says: "moderate sun exposure".
Sunscreen has become popular exactly because people tend not to be moderate and get way too much sun exposure, especially on the beach. Suggesting not to use suncreen at all is not only misleading, it's just plain stupid, all the more since people usually don't use sunscreen when they aren't going to the beach/mountain/skiing, so all you need to get moderate amounts of sun exposure is to get out at least a few minutes a day without putting sunscreen all over yourself. I don't know a lot of people who don't do that.
In conclusion, I think this study is pretty useless. Pretty much everyone knows that getting a bit of direct sunlight often enough *is* good for your health. You should still use sunscreen if you're going to get *a lot* of it. Skin cancer is not fun.
Just follow his line of reasoning:
That's a real question.
And I'm not even sure it has gotten any worse than it once was. I tend to think we just notice it more and more, only because we get to read more and more people from more and more varied backgrounds and origins than we used to as the use of the internet grows... I'm under the impression than we are just beginning to see a problem that we were ignoring before - the very reason being that written communication is becoming more and more important nowadays for all classes of people... whereas the huge majority of people would never use anything else than spoken language for their everyday needs...