how about putting up a banner with original text and a copyright notice?
Or better yet, why not just blow up a page from XML for Dummies? Same legal protection, without the need for any thought.;) And plus, you don't need to deal with the legal fees, the publishing company does!
What you're saying is like claiming that Microsoft Office for Mac is Windows software simply because it was developed by the company that develops Windows.
And to take that a little further, I remember reading some time back (I know that's far from citing a source, so I really can't prove this) that Microsoft develops Office on the Mac, and then ports to Windows. So except for different UIs (which I suppose is the point of the original post anyway, but go with me here), couldn't you call Microsoft Office (for Windows), Mac software on Windows?;)
Whoopsy:P Excuse me for jumping to conclusions... you see a 403 or 503 error after a site's been posted to Slashdot and 99% of the time it's caused by one thing.
I think they were only working with Cisco to see if they could come to an agreement easily. However, they decided that Cisco wanted too much money/publicity/etc. for their tastes, so they went to Plan B. Besides, it could possibly make their case even stronger: by working with Cisco, they establish that Cisco definitely knew they wanted the trademark. Combine that with Cisco's sudden use of the trademark, and, well... common sense says it was a desperate and underhanded attempt by Cisco to get a little extra money.
The obvious lack of the usage of the trademark is enough to say that Cisco didn't give squat about actually owning the trademark, despite what they may have said, and they likely would never have started using it if they didn't know Apple wanted it.
I think they had always intended to give out the name and get sued. Why? Because their legal department is one of the best in the industry, and they knew either that a) they could win the suit, or b) that Cisco didn't really have the iPhone trademark anymore.
Agreed. The group I talk to does not represent the majority (mostly web designers and people who use their computers because it's fun, not because they're forced to). Nevertheless, they still prefer OS X over Vista, and considering that many of these are industry professionals (some of whom are on PPC), it does add some merit to their claims.
Then again, John Dvorak is technically an industry professional as well, so...
Can't say you're entirely wrong, but for the record, most of the Mac users I've talked to actually have downloaded Vista betas and tried them out. I did myself, used it as a server on an old Dell in my basement, and on a PC upstairs just to check it out. Big improvements over XP, better looking, more secure... overall, a pretty good OS.
But personally, I can't say it's as good as OS X. The UNIX core is big, I think that OS X will always be more stable than Windows. I find the interface much more intuitive, and the way everything just works together (without much intervention from the user... for instance, no "Add New Hardware" wizard/manual installation of drivers) is truly amazing.
I will say though, Vista is making the question of OS superiority much closer to a simple matter of personal opinion.
I totally agree. It seems like the biggest opponents to Mac OS X have never actually used it for more than 5 minutes max.
Whenever I'm talking with someone who seems to vehemently hate Macs, I always ask "Have you ever used a Mac?" 90% of the time the answer is no, and for the remaining 10%, when I ask them when the last time they used a Mac was, for half of them it was either before Mac OS X hit the scene, or in the 10.0/10.1 days.
The remaining 5% that had recently "used" a Mac had just played with one for about 10 minutes at an Apple store.
I've yet to see someone who has used a Mac for a year straight give a compelling argument for Windows's superiority.
It's the proverbial "too little, too late." They released the iPhone only a month or so before they knew Apple was planning on announcing their iPhone, and didn't even do a good job about it (ie, stickers reading "iPhone" on existing product packaging).
The trademark was registered in 1999, and they only just started using it. Anyone with common sense can see it's because they knew Apple wanted it, and they thought they could squeeze a bit of cash out of them. Let's hope (for Apple's sake) that the judge has a little common sense.;)
Disclaimer: yes, I'm a Mac user, but you have to admit that it certainly seems like Cisco's actions in all of this are just attempts to underhandedly get some money from Apple. Not that Apple's announcement of the iPhone wasn't somewhat underhanded... but hey, fight fire with fire.
I bet insurance companies could have fun with this. For instance, you get into a little accident, and you just happen to get your car fixed at a shop on the insurance company's referral list. They slip an RFID tag into your car, and before you know it, right when you're coming up on that S-curve...
...both Apple and Cisco are suing VeriSign for the use of iDefense in the name of their labs. Apple claims that it dilutes their brand identity, and Cisco claims that they've been selling "defense" hardware with the "i" trademark for years!
You make a very good point. I concede that data is most important, but I do think the OS bares some responsibility for securing its stuff.
(By the way... Vista's security UAC security model is a definite step in the right direction, but I would prefer to see something where a piece of the user's knowledge is required; otherwise, it becomes another thing to click OK to. A password is preferable, but if not a password, perhaps picking a secret image out of a set? Or a sequence of images? Reminds me of something I recently saw on a video...)
Now, granted, I use a Mac, and on my PCs, I use AVG. Given that I also use Firefox on both computers, not many viruses come my way, so I wouldn't be an expert judge on this. But how many viruses actually target user data? I don't recall seeing many. Most just screw with your startup settings, slow down your computer, and seem to take inexplicable glee at replicating themselves so you can't remove them. But what do they really do? The spyware variety logs your private info, so that's definitely a threat, but what else is really big?
This may be offtopic, but I think a good way of looking at security from an OS perspective (based on what you just said) would be to throw a warning flag when any program, especially one the user did not manually start, asks to read, write to, or remove a large amount of files in your home directory, or that aren't applications or OS files. Batch file modification utilities would of course throw warnings, but if a user simply had to enter a password to use them, it wouldn't be too much of a hassle for an extra security blanket. Just a thought.
I mean I can send you a shell script that does "rm -rf ~" and if you are gullible enough to run it, well you just lost all your data. The OS can't defend against that.
Very true, but then again, this is when the user executes a file from a trusted source, and the file does not compromise the integrity of the computer, just the user's personal files.
On Linux, if you were to send someone a shell script that, on the other hand, said "rm -rf/", then you'd have yourself a problem: it wouldn't let you without first providing a root password. In a way, the operating system protects you from your own mistakes. Sure, if that's what you really want, it'll do it for you-- but you have to convince it first that it is what you really want.
Why can't Windows do this? And if it did... then why would there be a need for virus scanners? Removal tools, sure, for those idiot users who enter their password for everything. But dedicated scanners that bloat and slow down your computer? Not exactly a necessity anymore, are they?
Slashdot Mirror
Or better yet, why not just blow up a page from XML for Dummies? Same legal protection, without the need for any thought. ;) And plus, you don't need to deal with the legal fees, the publishing company does!
And to take that a little further, I remember reading some time back (I know that's far from citing a source, so I really can't prove this) that Microsoft develops Office on the Mac, and then ports to Windows. So except for different UIs (which I suppose is the point of the original post anyway, but go with me here), couldn't you call Microsoft Office (for Windows), Mac software on Windows? ;)
... if I had remembered that I can no longer assign mod points to this thread. :P
... I'm sorry, but I must ask: why is the parent modded "Interesting?" :P
One of my Funny mod points goes to you, man.
Oh.
Whoopsy :P Excuse me for jumping to conclusions... you see a 403 or 503 error after a site's been posted to Slashdot and 99% of the time it's caused by one thing.
I believe that would be the Slashdot Effect. ;)
I think they were only working with Cisco to see if they could come to an agreement easily. However, they decided that Cisco wanted too much money/publicity/etc. for their tastes, so they went to Plan B. Besides, it could possibly make their case even stronger: by working with Cisco, they establish that Cisco definitely knew they wanted the trademark. Combine that with Cisco's sudden use of the trademark, and, well... common sense says it was a desperate and underhanded attempt by Cisco to get a little extra money.
The obvious lack of the usage of the trademark is enough to say that Cisco didn't give squat about actually owning the trademark, despite what they may have said, and they likely would never have started using it if they didn't know Apple wanted it.
I think they had always intended to give out the name and get sued. Why? Because their legal department is one of the best in the industry, and they knew either that a) they could win the suit, or b) that Cisco didn't really have the iPhone trademark anymore.
Agreed. The group I talk to does not represent the majority (mostly web designers and people who use their computers because it's fun, not because they're forced to). Nevertheless, they still prefer OS X over Vista, and considering that many of these are industry professionals (some of whom are on PPC), it does add some merit to their claims.
Then again, John Dvorak is technically an industry professional as well, so...
Can't say you're entirely wrong, but for the record, most of the Mac users I've talked to actually have downloaded Vista betas and tried them out. I did myself, used it as a server on an old Dell in my basement, and on a PC upstairs just to check it out. Big improvements over XP, better looking, more secure... overall, a pretty good OS.
But personally, I can't say it's as good as OS X. The UNIX core is big, I think that OS X will always be more stable than Windows. I find the interface much more intuitive, and the way everything just works together (without much intervention from the user... for instance, no "Add New Hardware" wizard/manual installation of drivers) is truly amazing.
I will say though, Vista is making the question of OS superiority much closer to a simple matter of personal opinion.
I totally agree. It seems like the biggest opponents to Mac OS X have never actually used it for more than 5 minutes max.
Whenever I'm talking with someone who seems to vehemently hate Macs, I always ask "Have you ever used a Mac?" 90% of the time the answer is no, and for the remaining 10%, when I ask them when the last time they used a Mac was, for half of them it was either before Mac OS X hit the scene, or in the 10.0/10.1 days.
The remaining 5% that had recently "used" a Mac had just played with one for about 10 minutes at an Apple store.
I've yet to see someone who has used a Mac for a year straight give a compelling argument for Windows's superiority.
And yes, "Windows's" is proper grammar. :P
It's OK, according to the study, as long as he's fluent in Cobol and FORTRAN, he doesn't need English! :)
What the hell is wrong with you?! You're missing a crucial step in your plan! (modifications in bold italics)
There, now it will work. :)
It's the proverbial "too little, too late." They released the iPhone only a month or so before they knew Apple was planning on announcing their iPhone, and didn't even do a good job about it (ie, stickers reading "iPhone" on existing product packaging).
The trademark was registered in 1999, and they only just started using it. Anyone with common sense can see it's because they knew Apple wanted it, and they thought they could squeeze a bit of cash out of them. Let's hope (for Apple's sake) that the judge has a little common sense. ;)
Disclaimer: yes, I'm a Mac user, but you have to admit that it certainly seems like Cisco's actions in all of this are just attempts to underhandedly get some money from Apple. Not that Apple's announcement of the iPhone wasn't somewhat underhanded... but hey, fight fire with fire.
I bet insurance companies could have fun with this. For instance, you get into a little accident, and you just happen to get your car fixed at a shop on the insurance company's referral list. They slip an RFID tag into your car, and before you know it, right when you're coming up on that S-curve...
"Jim, quick! Look behind you!"
Instant money!
Oh yeah, because it's so hard not to change Mediawiki's default theme...
...both Apple and Cisco are suing VeriSign for the use of iDefense in the name of their labs. Apple claims that it dilutes their brand identity, and Cisco claims that they've been selling "defense" hardware with the "i" trademark for years!
I applied for that job, you insensitive clod!
Yeah, like (I'm betting) using <input type="img"... /> instead of <input type="image"... />. :)
To give the submitter the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he or she read the article as it only works on the third one.
Or, the submitter works for Microsoft and is therefore required to make IE look spotless, lest a chair come sailing from the other end of the room.
Of course, theoretically speaking, you should also only need to change your password in one place if you notice something has been compromised.
No, that happens even when you have an authentic copy.
It's definitely easy to tell when you have a non-original version. Your computer slows to a complete halt.
Probably why no one uses eMule anymore.
You make a very good point. I concede that data is most important, but I do think the OS bares some responsibility for securing its stuff.
(By the way... Vista's security UAC security model is a definite step in the right direction, but I would prefer to see something where a piece of the user's knowledge is required; otherwise, it becomes another thing to click OK to. A password is preferable, but if not a password, perhaps picking a secret image out of a set? Or a sequence of images? Reminds me of something I recently saw on a video...)
Now, granted, I use a Mac, and on my PCs, I use AVG. Given that I also use Firefox on both computers, not many viruses come my way, so I wouldn't be an expert judge on this. But how many viruses actually target user data? I don't recall seeing many. Most just screw with your startup settings, slow down your computer, and seem to take inexplicable glee at replicating themselves so you can't remove them. But what do they really do? The spyware variety logs your private info, so that's definitely a threat, but what else is really big?
This may be offtopic, but I think a good way of looking at security from an OS perspective (based on what you just said) would be to throw a warning flag when any program, especially one the user did not manually start, asks to read, write to, or remove a large amount of files in your home directory, or that aren't applications or OS files. Batch file modification utilities would of course throw warnings, but if a user simply had to enter a password to use them, it wouldn't be too much of a hassle for an extra security blanket. Just a thought.
Very true, but then again, this is when the user executes a file from a trusted source, and the file does not compromise the integrity of the computer, just the user's personal files.
On Linux, if you were to send someone a shell script that, on the other hand, said "rm -rf /", then you'd have yourself a problem: it wouldn't let you without first providing a root password. In a way, the operating system protects you from your own mistakes. Sure, if that's what you really want, it'll do it for you-- but you have to convince it first that it is what you really want.
Why can't Windows do this? And if it did... then why would there be a need for virus scanners? Removal tools, sure, for those idiot users who enter their password for everything. But dedicated scanners that bloat and slow down your computer? Not exactly a necessity anymore, are they?