Actually, I chalked it up to a little bit of journalistic integrity. There's no way you can download a new firmware update that has NO description of what was improved/changed in the description (other than "misc. bug fixes"), read about 24-48 hours worth of random comments on forums, and write a good article explaining the "fact" that said upgrade was GOOD or BAD!
Over on macrumors.com, I was following this update, yesterday, and I got the distinct impression that results were quite mixed. A good percentage of people reported about 1 more bar of signal strength on the 3g network than they saw before the update, and there were misc. reports of such things as, "I can now make a call inside my Chicago apartment, in the same room where previously, people always said my voice was garbled when I tried to call them."
I updated my boss's iPhone 3g to the new firmware yesterday afternoon, and so far, he hasn't noticed anything really "better" OR "worse" about it.
Meanwhile, people have reported completely different things they say were fixed in firmware 2.02 from 2.01, including Arabic web sites now displaying native language characters properly.
It seems likely to me that the more major 2.1 firmware update (that's now in beta testing by developers) would do more to attempt to address connectivity issues. This, at most, was probably just a small tweak of some parameters for how strong a signal needs to be before the iPhone decides it can use 3g vs dropping to EDGE, and vice-versa.
I absolutely agree that the US courts, RIAA, or really ANY organization out there can "end 50,000 years of the creation of music".
But that's not the point, really. The recording industry, in all of their greed and short-sightedness, really is damaging people's ability to enjoy music the way the artists intend it to be heard.
Have you seen the disgrace that is "digital mastering" in the big studios these days? Look at the waveforms of samples taken from recently released rock music CDs, if you don't believe me. They're so involved in a pissing match to release the "apparently loudest" tracks, they're compressing and normalizing the content to death. If they can find 1db of headroom they haven't saturated, they'll find it someplace in the pre-production stages. Most of the stuff out there has a waveform that looks like a rectangular block, not waves!
I like music from bands like the Foo Fighters and Breaking Benjamin, or the Red Hot Chili Peppers, but my ears get fatigued after only a couple tracks off any of their recent albums. It's because the studios have ruined the original recordings, boosting all the quiet portions of the songs and flattening the peaks to make it all an equally "hot" mix. Total ripoff!
It's very possible to claim the record industry really *is* playing a huge role in alienating a generation from enjoying music as it's meant to be heard. It's not only an issue of cost, or not making the content legally available in the formats people prefer or demand... but they're physically destroying the QUALITY of the recordings too!
Very valid counter-argument, except I think a company trying to implement something like your example of MS Exchange, in a near 0 downtime secnario, would take into account that the product itself is going to potentially go down once in a while. Like you say, it isn't really "news" that Microsoft Windows-based server apps aren't 100% rock solid reliable.
I would assume a "proper" implementation would involve numerous servers running cloned copies of the environment, with the ability to do hot-failover in the event of any component, hardware or software, failing.
Truthfully, I've never worked for an employer who was really interested in achieving "near 0" downtime, seriously enough to spend the money on it that it required. But I believe most people opting for that would be looking more at "big iron" minicomputers or mainframes from the likes of IBM... not Intel x86 based servers running on microcomputer architectures.
I'm not sure how much knowledge you have in this area, to speak authoritatively on it? But my big question would be; Why does NASA expect they *deserve* more federal funding, when it appears they've been making too many mistakes and mis-steps in recent years?
I mean, the obvious issue that comes to most people's minds was the shuttle explosion, apparently caused by poor engineering decisions, and subsequent cover-ups of them. But those who follow NASA a little more closely might remember such things as them accidentally letting a new satellite fall off a transport platform, onto the floor, causing expensive damage. (As I recall, the reason for this mishap was failure to properly secure it before moving it.) Going further back, we have issues like the Hubble telescope not working as designed, and several issues with arms on landers they've deployed, etc.
I realize space exploration, by nature, is a risky endeavor, and accidents will happen with complex technologies. But the problems that developed in the "space race" era felt much more like truly unavoidable situations that the "best and brightest" went to great lengths to resolve in the best manner possible. In recent years, the problems appear to be caused more by incompetence, putting priorities in the wrong order, or just rushing to meet deadlines?
First of all, you shouldn't have to "wonder" what "commercial gain" means, because the U.S. legal system considered the term a perfectly valid criterion, required in order to prosecute a case as "criminal copyright infringement" all the way up through 1998. That's when the DMCA made sweeping changes - taking away many "fair use rights" that had been established for decades.
Considering the OTHER criterion used for decades defined the quantity of copies of a work that had to be proven to be re-distributed as a factor (less than 10 copies of a single work, I believe, meant it was not prosecutable as "criminal"), it's clear the long-standing belief was NOT along the lines of your thinking. (EG. You're guilty of "theft" as soon as you make a single copy of a work.)
Trying to drag "counterfeiting of money" into this debate sounds to me like you're grasping at straws for some analogy to back up your flawed logic? Counterfeiting obviously creates negative consequences for all users of the money in question, by artificially de-valuing it. That's why you'll never see a "fair use" provision in law for making copies of your money for your "personal use and convenience", for "educational purposes" or anything else. It's a simple fact that government has the Constitutional right to control our monetary system and exclusive rights to mint money. This was done to ensure that they, alone, control how much of it is flowing out there at a given time, so they can modify this supply to control inflation and so on. Completely irrelevant to our discussion at hand, really.
I do maintain that piracy helps artists via free promotion. How is it you've determined I never promote any artists? Did you Google search my name extensively, and come to this flawed conclusion? Or perhaps it was because you didn't see me talking about any bands here on Slashdot? I can walk downstairs right now and look at a CD rack that's filled with well over 200 *bought* music CDs of artists I like. I can look up on the wall above that rack, and see a large wooden cassette tape storage rack, also full of tapes I purchased in the past. I *even* have a few albums I own on BOTH cassette and CD. (Hey, what's with that? I already paid for the rights to the album the first time - yet just because I wanted the same thing on a more modernized version of the media it plays from, the recording industry ripped ME off, making me pay for the same rights TWICE!)
If what you claim was true, it would make no sense at all that I own copies of all of this purchased music, would it? But as I said earlier, the "pirates" ARE the SAME people as the CUSTOMERS! (For the record, I own thousands of dollars of commercially bought computer software too. But do I buy everything I've ever installed or used on a PC or Mac? Nope.... I don't, just like 99% of the other people I've met out there.)
Oh and game demo are the industry equivalent of radio?? Wow... that's a huge stretch! My own experience with "game demos" is, they're hardly worth the bother. They might let me see how well the game should run on a given system (an issue the music industry doesn't even have, since all radios and CD players play the same way).... but beyond that? The game reviews posted on the net, or word of mouth, or better yet, ability to play the real thing at a friend's house who already bought it, are more useful.
Game games are NOT usually the "full, uncrippled thing"! Have you even played any game demos yourself before?? I own a PS3 and I can assure, each and EVERY time I downloaded a game demo for it (or received one on some type of DVD demo collection disc) I was only able to play the very first 1 or 2 levels of said game. (I recently tried out a demo for a Tony Hawk skater game, for example, and not only did it ONLY let you play through the very first level of the game, but it ALSO limited you to a maximum of about 5 minutes of play at a time. So as soon as you started to figure out how to do anything, or wandered
Expecting five-9 or 0 downtime for a system used by only ONE company might be a very high expectation with a high cost vs. usage obtained from it afterwards.
But how many companies rely on Google's systems? When you offer your application or suite to the whole nation or WORLD, and campaign for its use - then YES, you do need to keep a very near-0 downtime to be really successful.
I normally would have just left a discussion like this alone, since it is Slashdot, after all, and nobody follows thread replies for more than maybe 2 days, tops, after the original article is posted.
But you're such the epitome of the stance I'm trying to take a stand against, I'm compelled to continue this debate.
First and foremost, you have this MAJOR flaw in your "logic" when you start speaking of "pirates" as though they're some kind of sub-culture that exists independently of the consumers who pay for music, computer software and other "intangibles".
In reality, almost *everyone* I run across is at least the occasional, casual "pirate", in the sense that they don't see a moral problem with making copies of material for personal use and enjoyment, on occasion. In fact, this has been LEGALLY backed in court rulings such as the one allowing people to record television shows on VHS tapes and keep them around for personal use. (It even made clear the fact that inviting your friends over to watch the recording was NOT illegal either, since it wasn't considered the same thing as charging for tickets to see a viewing of the program.)
This is VERY much a ruling in the "spirit" of copyright law, as opposed to more recent legislation (DMCA, etc.) that adheres to a strict "letter of the law" interpretation - in a clear attempt to maximize profits for content creators by strong-arming the consumer.
IMHO, it's quite a stretch to label a person a CRIMINAL for merely exchanging copies of some content, without commercial gain being a factor. The person who starts a big counterfeiting ring in his basement, running off perfect duplicates of Microsoft software with fake holograms and realistic looking boxes? That's clearly a copyright violation worthy of prosecution! People intending to pay for a copy of said product are instead receiving a fake that diverted those funds away from the intended recipient.
Infringing copyright, in the sense that someone obtained a COPY of some content without agreeing to BUY it under the terms and agreements specified in the shrink-wrapped contract is HARDLY the same thing as "stealing"! In the case of physical theft, by someone taking the item without paying for it, they're directly causing a LOSS for the store owner who had to BUY the product in the first place to put it on the shelf! If I give away 2 copies of a movie I purchased, I dare you to show me a store anyplace that is automatically out 2 copies of that movie!
The root of this whole problem lies with the "law of the land" being unreasonably strict. It makes law-abiding citizens INTO criminals when they're doing nothing that really should be illegal in the first place. That's why I spend time trying to explain the problem. Has nothing to do with me trying to feel "morally superior" to anyone.
Oh, and "greed" is a very common human emotion. I'd say YOU must be trying to fool yourself into think you're morally superior, if you claim to be exempt from it? Ayn Rand was probably quite correct in her many comments to the effect that "greed" can be a good, positive thing. Just because you're looking out for yourself and what happens to benefit YOU the most, doesn't mean those actions don't also have beneficial consequences for others. The desire to have "more" is what motivates most of us in this world to get up and go to work every day, or to take a chance on opening one's own business, or ??
I'm not promoting the idea that "if you can't afford something, it's ok to steal it".
1. That statement makes the popular leap in logic that distributing a COPY of "intellectual property" is "stealing", when it's simply NOT. Stealing, by definition, means you removed a physical asset without permission. (Of course, I think you already KNOW this, but like hiding behind calling it "theft" since it makes your case much stronger if people go along with that.)
2. Ask yourself why musicians are willing to sign contracts with recording companies in the first place. What's really "in it" for them, giving up the rights to their creative works like that, and allowing someone else to sell them on their behalf, taking a huge cut of the profits? Surely, the ability to get their music recorded is no longer much of a reason. Anyone can wander down to the local "Guitar Center" store and buy a very capable digital recording studio, centered around a standard Apple Mac or Windows PC and mix/master their own music - starting at under $3000. (Even a broke musician who can't afford THAT can probably find a buddy who will help them get their stuff recorded for free or dirt cheap.) The ONLY valid reason they still agree to these crappy record deals is because they want the EXPOSURE. They know a company like Sony or Warner will invest the money and has the connections to get their name and work out there, where it can be heard (radio, etc.). Yet these SAME artists should be "upset" to the point of filing criminal CHARGES against people helping do essentially the SAME THING for them for FREE??
See, I think people like you are going about the ENTIRE thing the wrong way. The O.P. gave an excellent example of what can happen when you don't "bite the hand that feeds you", by trying to enforce copyright "to the absolute letter of the law".
Just because the law ENABLES a recording company, software publisher, or anyone else creating "intellectual property" to press criminal charges against people "pirating" their works, doesn't mean it's WISE to pursue it all the time.
You ask "What about the hundreds of other artists whose music you stole?", but in return I ask; "Yeah! What about them? They ALL jockey for a top position in your music collection and brain as a favorite artist. Obviously, only a few will succeed with any given individual."
The POINT is, people only have so much disposable income to spend on things like music. They spend what their budget allows them to spend, and after that, they can either follow copyright law "to the letter", owning, listening to and promoting by word of mouth the few albums they paid for. OR, they can take the approach of "pirating" whatever strikes their fancy, broadening their musical horizons in the process and giving all those additional artists a better shot at being on their "short list" to spend their limited income on down the road. PLUS, doing this means they'll be helping promote many of those artists to others, so even IF they didn't buy the album personally, they might get a friend, or some stranger who visits their Facebook page, to buy it. Net win for the artists who got "pirated", really.
When I was younger, I really wanted a "tricked out" sports car with flashy ground f/x, neon lighting, decals down the sides of the doors, the whole bit.
I also got a kick out of bragging about all the costly software apps I had cracked copies of, and was able to use for free.
You grow up and the things that amuse you change a little bit. It's just life.....
I still find, today, though - I use a fair bit of "pirated software". I also pay for a LOT more of it than I did when I was younger, though.
Honestly, for me, it usually comes down to a simple "value judgment", with a little bit of "ethical justification" thrown in the mix too.
First and foremost, is the asking price of the software within my reach? If not, can I just use something different that's less expensive and get similar results? When the answer to BOTH question is no, then I'm liable to pirate it.
Secondly though, does the software I'm considering pirating come from a source I've given money to in the past? How much have they made from previous sales to me? Morally speaking, I'm far more "comfortable" with pirating a Microsoft or an Apple-branded app for personal use, because in the first case - I've been responsible for companies purchasing many tens of of thousands of dollars in MS software licenses over the years. These were usually licenses that would NOT have ever been purchased at all, if I wasn't cost-justifying them to people and promising our dept. would get them implemented for them afterwards. In the second case, I've bought close to 10 Apple Mac computers, 2 iPods, an iPhone, a retail copy of OS X Leopard, a copy of the iWorks suite, the iLife suite, and convinced 4 or 5 people I knew to buy a Mac, as well. Apple sure didn't ever give ME any commission on those sales I made for them! So if I decide to pirate something like Final Cut Studio (that I can't afford or cost-justify for the mere sake of "wanting to tinker with it, to learn it") - I don't feel bad.
Interesting.... but frankly, the only circumstances I've ever run across where a company takes the "If you don't like it, sue us!" attitude towards software licensing is when they feel they've already put up with enough/too much from the vendor in question.
I really do think major corporations are more likely to stay compliant on licensing, because they've got more to lose for starters, and have more employees who keep tabs on such things. (Generally, a small business may have the owner him/herself purchasing the software that's used - and everyone just takes his/her word that's it's all legal. A mid-sized business often still has a similar situation, where one or two I.T. people are responsible for the software and licensing. And as we all know, they're usually more interested in getting a job done than in screwing around with a bunch of documentation and details of licenses.) With larger companies, though, you've got actual people hired to do the "software compliance" checks, or you have larger I.T. departments where an individual who might otherwise just run some cracked software is afraid his co-workers could turn him in for it.
I can't speak for your specific software package, but I have a strong suspicion it was a case where your customer felt "morally, even if not legally justified" in installing all the extra seats. Maybe they had poor support in the past (shelling out big $'s for a maintenance agreement that was relatively useless?) or something along those lines?
Yep, absolutely right! I'm constantly frustrated by the "Pronest" software our company uses. We purchased a "floating license" for it, where the client checks in with the license manager on a server to "take" the available license for only as long as it's running on a particular workstation.
Ok in theory, but in practice, a nightmare! I've had PCs that run into all sorts of problems where they can't communicate with the license server, so the app won't start. The "tech support FAQ" just recommends making sure the Crypkey service is running, and to re-register a bunch of.DLL files if it won't start. That only solved the problem for me in ONE instance.
It now looks like the license file itself on the server got damaged somehow, and NONE of the PCs will authorize against it. This is going to be a HUGE hassle, because the makers of this software make you jump through all sorts of hoops to request a new license key - especially for a "floating" network license.
The Blackberrys have the ability to be remote wiped of all data, for example.
And although no mention has really ever been made of it, I see no technical reason why other carriers like US Cellular couldn't easily "revoke/kill" purchased apps on their users' phones either? They use a DRM mechanism where they issue you a "key" when you download the app. Seems like a forced download of an update could cause all the apps to need a fresh key in order to keep running? (Unlike Apple, who has the whole iTunes store with actual user accounts on it though, you're screwed if your physical phone breaks with US Cellular. All your apps are just lost, period. You don't get to re-download them using some user acct. that "remembers" what you paid for previously.)
I fully understand and expect that my mobile phones are subject to more control by carriers than a "stand alone" device like my personal computer. If your #1 worry is getting to run whatever you want on your iPhone, vs. actually USING it as a CELLPHONE - then fine. Just re-flash the thing with whatever code you like. It's not a "non user updatable" device, obviously... as all the "jailbreaks" prove.
All fine and good, but I'd counter-argue that if YOU can't comprehend why it's potentially very BENEFICIAL for a carrier to be able to globally "kill off" some new app that turns out to be a trojan horse, leaking out your private information everywhere... then I don't know what to tell you, really?
It's one thing to claim you're "perfectly capable of deciding for yourself what you want on your phone"... but another for that statement to be truly 100% accurate.
Working in I.T. as long as I have, I, too, like to feel "in control" of the devices I use. Most of the time, I know what I'm *trying* to install and leave out on the computers I use. But the problem comes in because none of us have time (or even the ability) to audit the source code for each program we install. We have to go on faith that apps do what they say, most of the time. We can pay other people to act as "watchdogs" for us, which is essentially what paid subscriptions for anti-virus/anti-spyware software really are. But ultimately, we still have to trust SOMEONE, or else we'd never install ANY new software on a computer, a phone, or other electronic device, out of fear it might destroy our data or send it where it's not supposed to go!
I generally agree, but you STILL have to do the research from all the angles.
EG. I needed to dig a new hole to put my mailbox back in the ground after it got hit by a car and knocked over. I promptly visited my neighborhood home-improvement store, and saw they offered 3 different post-hole diggers. The cheap model had wooden handles and looked uncomfortable to use. The middle model had steel handles with rubber grips on them, and features an easier-to-use action. Finally, the most expensive "pro grade" model seemed to be identical to the mid-grade version, except it was a little bit heavier (thicker metal handles, apparently?).
Thinking the mid-priced one was my best value, I spent my $42 for it and came home.
Guess what? It barely penetrated the rocky soil I had, so I struggled with it for quite a while to dig just a shallow little post hole. Finally, I got disgusted with it and tried a regular old long-handled shovel I had in my garage. Worked far better, since you could press it into the ground with a work boot, vs. having to throw it into the ground like a spear.
So my "good deal" at $42 was just a *waste* of $42.
I actually agree with this ruling, despite being at least a "small l" libertarian and hating government regulation.
Legal protection of "non compete" clauses amounts to giving an employer the ability to restrict an individual's freedom after they no longer have an employment contract with them.
A person should be free to use their knowledge and skills without artificial limitations imposed by force of law.
Amen to that! I already have a PS3 and a nice plasma HDTV (a refurb. I mail-ordered a year or so ago for an amazingly low price), but other than the Blade Runner box set, I haven't even purchased any blu-ray discs.
Sure, the quality is awesome... but I was enjoying my movies on DVD just fine, before all the "HD" stuff came along. Most of the time, I don't even want to watch a movie more than once, anyway. If it's really good, I like owning it so I can show it to friends who might not have seen it before -- but being able to do that is only so valuable to me. Some standard-def DVD movie out of the discount bin for $5 or even $7? Sure, if I remember it was a classic, I'll grab it. But $30 and up? Nah....
I think you make a valid point. Gordo Cooper is certainly worthy of mention, if someone is going to cover this story.
But "absolutely depressing"? I don't come away with that, myself. Star Trek was a HUGELY popular TV show, that thrived against all odds at the time. For a while there, props were literally being created from stuff dug out of garbage dumpsters, due to a lack of funds. Its creator had a real vision and message of hope to express. It wasn't just another crappy sit-com cranked out to make a buck or two. It,arguably, did more to spark people's imaginations about the possibilities for space travel than anything else at the time. I can't prove it, but I sure would't be at all surprised to find that many of NASA's current and former employees would list Star Trek as one of their inspirations growing up.
This has never been true with using "anonymous forums" on the Internet, really.
For example, someone just recently commented on Craigslist's "Rants & Raves" forum how his brother was paid a visit by "Homeland Security" here in the USA, because he had posted an anonymous comment advocating the shooting of the current president.
Anonymous message forums I've seen and used never gave me a written guarantee that my identity would never be subject to being uncovered if I posted there. They merely function anonymous as a matter of "general practice", subject to the prevailing laws of the land.
IMHO, anyone posting hate speech or directly attacking people by name on an "anonymous" forum should be aware that they better use methods of their own to ensure they can't be traced back by IP address to their whereabouts. Relying on the forum to "shield" them from the law is a risky bet, at best.
While your Internet = CB radio analogy is ok, I'm in disagreement with the suggestion that govt. regulation and licensing was the main (or sole?) reason Ham radio developed a group of "more serious" users.
I'd argue that Ham radio was simply a far better, more useful technology. CB radio has always been hamstrung by govt. regulations limiting the power output (to what, 4 watts?), and only 40 channels total (plus the single sideband garbage that tries to squeeze more channels out of those 40, but usually winds up with poor quality audio and noise). Anyone wanting to do serious radio communications pretty much has to rule out CB, because the channels are too cluttered, reception is spotty, etc. In fact, MOST people using CB regularly are doing so in gross violation of the law, running "black market" signal boosters/amplifiers that let them transmit FAR more than what's legally allowed. Since this is "illegal" though, the quality of such amps tends to be very poor - causing bleed-over onto many other frequencies when they transmit.
By contrast, Ham radio has a whole "infrastructure" of repeater towers and such, more complex and cable radios, etc. You don't need to resort to some poorly made power amp to allow your friend to hear you speak if you're more than a few miles away from their location. The fact govt. requires a HAM license and enforces all sorts of usage rules (must broadcast your "callsign" when speaking, etc. etc.) isn't WHY it's popular. It's just bureaucracy they put up with to be able to use the technology.
Indeed, but as the old saying goes: "How do you eat an elephant? In many small bites, taken one at a time."
Politics has become corrupt and inaccessible enough for the "common man" at the federal level, there really isn't much you can do to change it. You get to vote for a president once every 4 years, and you get to plead to mostly deaf-ear turning congressmen and "representatives" to make changes in Washington for you. (If they *do* listen to you, it's usually just coincidence, because people with deeper pockets than you are paying them to do what happens to be the same thing you wanted.)
Where you can STILL make a difference is at the local level. Your individual voice is FAR more meaningful as a member of a local community than as a member of the U.S. citizenry as a whole.
I think change has to "trickle up" from the local and even state levels, so frying all these "small fish" consistently is about as effective a message as one can send.
Your comments are spot-on.... but I'd also add that the reasons most of these "diets" fail is precisely BECAUSE they're designed with being a "temporary measure" in mind.
People follow these weird diets that encourage eating an abundance of a particular category or two of food, while shunning many others. Obviously, that's going to get BORING after so long, and the dieter is going to slip back out of that routine. (In some cases, it may even deprive them of a needed vitamin or mineral - forcing them to give it up.)
Others offer well-balanced mixes of tasty food choices, but they encourage "laziness" on the part of the dieter, letting the company (Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, etc.) do the calorie counting for them. Once they tire of spending that much of a price premium to purchase everything from them -- they usually again fall into eating patterns of taking in more calories.
By the same token, there's considerable evidence that it's not even necessarily "bad" to be a little over the weight some chart claims is "ideal" for an individual. (Remember grandma's old thing about cleaning your plate, to stay healthy? Some studies show slightly overweight people get sick less often.)
As long as you stay reasonably active and make healthy food choices (not too many trans-fats or processed sugars, etc.), it's probably both natural and "ok" to gain a little weight as you age.
I hardly think today's Apple is "following Microsoft's path 15 years later"?
Apple puts out quite a few security updates, as far as I can see. My OS X software updates has offered me several of them consistently, every month or so.
The fact is though, market share of Apple Macs running OS X is still well under 10% -- and unlike Microsoft, I don't think Apple as a company is that concerned about it either.
Steve Jobs has said repeatedly that he doesn't aim to be dominant in sales, like Microsoft. He's more comfortable having a company catering to consumers and small business customers, willing to pay a premium for a perceived "higher end" computing experience.
If Apple's business model was anything like Microsoft's - they'd be slashing prices on iMacs and Mac Minis, making sure $200-400 price point systems were out there in every single Wal-Mart and OfficeMax store, and would probably have sold OS X on store shelves for ANY generic PC by now too.
This also means Apple has the luxury of not having to stop what they're doing and immediately jump on patching every new security flaw that comes along. Only big corporate/govt. users are the ones truly paranoid and insistent on this stuff being fixed NOW. Most consumer and small office users don't even READ about such flaws, much less make their purchasing decisions based on how quickly the manufacturer addresses the flaws.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I chalked it up to a little bit of journalistic integrity. There's no way you can download a new firmware update that has NO description of what was improved/changed in the description (other than "misc. bug fixes"), read about 24-48 hours worth of random comments on forums, and write a good article explaining the "fact" that said upgrade was GOOD or BAD!
Over on macrumors.com, I was following this update, yesterday, and I got the distinct impression that results were quite mixed. A good percentage of people reported about 1 more bar of signal strength on the 3g network than they saw before the update, and there were misc. reports of such things as, "I can now make a call inside my Chicago apartment, in the same room where previously, people always said my voice was garbled when I tried to call them."
I updated my boss's iPhone 3g to the new firmware yesterday afternoon, and so far, he hasn't noticed anything really "better" OR "worse" about it.
Meanwhile, people have reported completely different things they say were fixed in firmware 2.02 from 2.01, including Arabic web sites now displaying native language characters properly.
It seems likely to me that the more major 2.1 firmware update (that's now in beta testing by developers) would do more to attempt to address connectivity issues. This, at most, was probably just a small tweak of some parameters for how strong a signal needs to be before the iPhone decides it can use 3g vs dropping to EDGE, and vice-versa.
I absolutely agree that the US courts, RIAA, or really ANY organization out there can "end 50,000 years of the creation of music".
But that's not the point, really. The recording industry, in all of their greed and short-sightedness, really is damaging people's ability to enjoy music the way the artists intend it to be heard.
Have you seen the disgrace that is "digital mastering" in the big studios these days? Look at the waveforms of samples taken from recently released rock music CDs, if you don't believe me. They're so involved in a pissing match to release the "apparently loudest" tracks, they're compressing and normalizing the content to death. If they can find 1db of headroom they haven't saturated, they'll find it someplace in the pre-production stages. Most of the stuff out there has a waveform that looks like a rectangular block, not waves!
I like music from bands like the Foo Fighters and Breaking Benjamin, or the Red Hot Chili Peppers, but my ears get fatigued after only a couple tracks off any of their recent albums. It's because the studios have ruined the original recordings, boosting all the quiet portions of the songs and flattening the peaks to make it all an equally "hot" mix. Total ripoff!
It's very possible to claim the record industry really *is* playing a huge role in alienating a generation from enjoying music as it's meant to be heard. It's not only an issue of cost, or not making the content legally available in the formats people prefer or demand ... but they're physically destroying the QUALITY of the recordings too!
Very valid counter-argument, except I think a company trying to implement something like your example of MS Exchange, in a near 0 downtime secnario, would take into account that the product itself is going to potentially go down once in a while. Like you say, it isn't really "news" that Microsoft Windows-based server apps aren't 100% rock solid reliable.
I would assume a "proper" implementation would involve numerous servers running cloned copies of the environment, with the ability to do hot-failover in the event of any component, hardware or software, failing.
Truthfully, I've never worked for an employer who was really interested in achieving "near 0" downtime, seriously enough to spend the money on it that it required. But I believe most people opting for that would be looking more at "big iron" minicomputers or mainframes from the likes of IBM ... not Intel x86 based servers running on microcomputer architectures.
I'm not sure how much knowledge you have in this area, to speak authoritatively on it? But my big question would be; Why does NASA expect they *deserve* more federal funding, when it appears they've been making too many mistakes and mis-steps in recent years?
I mean, the obvious issue that comes to most people's minds was the shuttle explosion, apparently caused by poor engineering decisions, and subsequent cover-ups of them. But those who follow NASA a little more closely might remember such things as them accidentally letting a new satellite fall off a transport platform, onto the floor, causing expensive damage. (As I recall, the reason for this mishap was failure to properly secure it before moving it.) Going further back, we have issues like the Hubble telescope not working as designed, and several issues with arms on landers they've deployed, etc.
I realize space exploration, by nature, is a risky endeavor, and accidents will happen with complex technologies. But the problems that developed in the "space race" era felt much more like truly unavoidable situations that the "best and brightest" went to great lengths to resolve in the best manner possible. In recent years, the problems appear to be caused more by incompetence, putting priorities in the wrong order, or just rushing to meet deadlines?
Actually, I think this bug is in the process of being fixed. I heard the beta firmware 1.02 addresses this issue already.
(But due to terms of their NDA, all of this could just be a fabrication too....)
First of all, you shouldn't have to "wonder" what "commercial gain" means, because the U.S. legal system considered the term a perfectly valid criterion, required in order to prosecute a case as "criminal copyright infringement" all the way up through 1998. That's when the DMCA made sweeping changes - taking away many "fair use rights" that had been established for decades.
Considering the OTHER criterion used for decades defined the quantity of copies of a work that had to be proven to be re-distributed as a factor (less than 10 copies of a single work, I believe, meant it was not prosecutable as "criminal"), it's clear the long-standing belief was NOT along the lines of your thinking. (EG. You're guilty of "theft" as soon as you make a single copy of a work.)
Trying to drag "counterfeiting of money" into this debate sounds to me like you're grasping at straws for some analogy to back up your flawed logic? Counterfeiting obviously creates negative consequences for all users of the money in question, by artificially de-valuing it. That's why you'll never see a "fair use" provision in law for making copies of your money for your "personal use and convenience", for "educational purposes" or anything else. It's a simple fact that government has the Constitutional right to control our monetary system and exclusive rights to mint money. This was done to ensure that they, alone, control how much of it is flowing out there at a given time, so they can modify this supply to control inflation and so on. Completely irrelevant to our discussion at hand, really.
I do maintain that piracy helps artists via free promotion. How is it you've determined I never promote any artists? Did you Google search my name extensively, and come to this flawed conclusion? Or perhaps it was because you didn't see me talking about any bands here on Slashdot? I can walk downstairs right now and look at a CD rack that's filled with well over 200 *bought* music CDs of artists I like. I can look up on the wall above that rack, and see a large wooden cassette tape storage rack, also full of tapes I purchased in the past. I *even* have a few albums I own on BOTH cassette and CD. (Hey, what's with that? I already paid for the rights to the album the first time - yet just because I wanted the same thing on a more modernized version of the media it plays from, the recording industry ripped ME off, making me pay for the same rights TWICE!)
If what you claim was true, it would make no sense at all that I own copies of all of this purchased music, would it? But as I said earlier, the "pirates" ARE the SAME people as the CUSTOMERS! (For the record, I own thousands of dollars of commercially bought computer software too. But do I buy everything I've ever installed or used on a PC or Mac? Nope.... I don't, just like 99% of the other people I've met out there.)
Oh and game demo are the industry equivalent of radio?? Wow ... that's a huge stretch! My own experience with "game demos" is, they're hardly worth the bother. They might let me see how well the game should run on a given system (an issue the music industry doesn't even have, since all radios and CD players play the same way) .... but beyond that? The game reviews posted on the net, or word of mouth, or better yet, ability to play the real thing at a friend's house who already bought it, are more useful.
Game games are NOT usually the "full, uncrippled thing"! Have you even played any game demos yourself before?? I own a PS3 and I can assure, each and EVERY time I downloaded a game demo for it (or received one on some type of DVD demo collection disc) I was only able to play the very first 1 or 2 levels of said game. (I recently tried out a demo for a Tony Hawk skater game, for example, and not only did it ONLY let you play through the very first level of the game, but it ALSO limited you to a maximum of about 5 minutes of play at a time. So as soon as you started to figure out how to do anything, or wandered
Expecting five-9 or 0 downtime for a system used by only ONE company might be a very high expectation with a high cost vs. usage obtained from it afterwards.
But how many companies rely on Google's systems? When you offer your application or suite to the whole nation or WORLD, and campaign for its use - then YES, you do need to keep a very near-0 downtime to be really successful.
I normally would have just left a discussion like this alone, since it is Slashdot, after all, and nobody follows thread replies for more than maybe 2 days, tops, after the original article is posted.
But you're such the epitome of the stance I'm trying to take a stand against, I'm compelled to continue this debate.
First and foremost, you have this MAJOR flaw in your "logic" when you start speaking of "pirates" as though they're some kind of sub-culture that exists independently of the consumers who pay for music, computer software and other "intangibles".
In reality, almost *everyone* I run across is at least the occasional, casual "pirate", in the sense that they don't see a moral problem with making copies of material for personal use and enjoyment, on occasion. In fact, this has been LEGALLY backed in court rulings such as the one allowing people to record television shows on VHS tapes and keep them around for personal use. (It even made clear the fact that inviting your friends over to watch the recording was NOT illegal either, since it wasn't considered the same thing as charging for tickets to see a viewing of the program.)
This is VERY much a ruling in the "spirit" of copyright law, as opposed to more recent legislation (DMCA, etc.) that adheres to a strict "letter of the law" interpretation - in a clear attempt to maximize profits for content creators by strong-arming the consumer.
IMHO, it's quite a stretch to label a person a CRIMINAL for merely exchanging copies of some content, without commercial gain being a factor. The person who starts a big counterfeiting ring in his basement, running off perfect duplicates of Microsoft software with fake holograms and realistic looking boxes? That's clearly a copyright violation worthy of prosecution! People intending to pay for a copy of said product are instead receiving a fake that diverted those funds away from the intended recipient.
Infringing copyright, in the sense that someone obtained a COPY of some content without agreeing to BUY it under the terms and agreements specified in the shrink-wrapped contract is HARDLY the same thing as "stealing"! In the case of physical theft, by someone taking the item without paying for it, they're directly causing a LOSS for the store owner who had to BUY the product in the first place to put it on the shelf! If I give away 2 copies of a movie I purchased, I dare you to show me a store anyplace that is automatically out 2 copies of that movie!
The root of this whole problem lies with the "law of the land" being unreasonably strict. It makes law-abiding citizens INTO criminals when they're doing nothing that really should be illegal in the first place. That's why I spend time trying to explain the problem. Has nothing to do with me trying to feel "morally superior" to anyone.
Oh, and "greed" is a very common human emotion. I'd say YOU must be trying to fool yourself into think you're morally superior, if you claim to be exempt from it? Ayn Rand was probably quite correct in her many comments to the effect that "greed" can be a good, positive thing. Just because you're looking out for yourself and what happens to benefit YOU the most, doesn't mean those actions don't also have beneficial consequences for others. The desire to have "more" is what motivates most of us in this world to get up and go to work every day, or to take a chance on opening one's own business, or ??
Basically, that's over simplified and incorrect.
I'm not promoting the idea that "if you can't afford something, it's ok to steal it".
1. That statement makes the popular leap in logic that distributing a COPY of "intellectual property" is "stealing", when it's simply NOT. Stealing, by definition, means you removed a physical asset without permission. (Of course, I think you already KNOW this, but like hiding behind calling it "theft" since it makes your case much stronger if people go along with that.)
2. Ask yourself why musicians are willing to sign contracts with recording companies in the first place. What's really "in it" for them, giving up the rights to their creative works like that, and allowing someone else to sell them on their behalf, taking a huge cut of the profits? Surely, the ability to get their music recorded is no longer much of a reason. Anyone can wander down to the local "Guitar Center" store and buy a very capable digital recording studio, centered around a standard Apple Mac or Windows PC and mix/master their own music - starting at under $3000. (Even a broke musician who can't afford THAT can probably find a buddy who will help them get their stuff recorded for free or dirt cheap.) The ONLY valid reason they still agree to these crappy record deals is because they want the EXPOSURE. They know a company like Sony or Warner will invest the money and has the connections to get their name and work out there, where it can be heard (radio, etc.). Yet these SAME artists should be "upset" to the point of filing criminal CHARGES against people helping do essentially the SAME THING for them for FREE??
See, I think people like you are going about the ENTIRE thing the wrong way. The O.P. gave an excellent example of what can happen when you don't "bite the hand that feeds you", by trying to enforce copyright "to the absolute letter of the law".
Just because the law ENABLES a recording company, software publisher, or anyone else creating "intellectual property" to press criminal charges against people "pirating" their works, doesn't mean it's WISE to pursue it all the time.
You ask "What about the hundreds of other artists whose music you stole?", but in return I ask; "Yeah! What about them? They ALL jockey for a top position in your music collection and brain as a favorite artist. Obviously, only a few will succeed with any given individual."
The POINT is, people only have so much disposable income to spend on things like music. They spend what their budget allows them to spend, and after that, they can either follow copyright law "to the letter", owning, listening to and promoting by word of mouth the few albums they paid for. OR, they can take the approach of "pirating" whatever strikes their fancy, broadening their musical horizons in the process and giving all those additional artists a better shot at being on their "short list" to spend their limited income on down the road. PLUS, doing this means they'll be helping promote many of those artists to others, so even IF they didn't buy the album personally, they might get a friend, or some stranger who visits their Facebook page, to buy it. Net win for the artists who got "pirated", really.
When I was younger, I really wanted a "tricked out" sports car with flashy ground f/x, neon lighting, decals down the sides of the doors, the whole bit.
I also got a kick out of bragging about all the costly software apps I had cracked copies of, and was able to use for free.
You grow up and the things that amuse you change a little bit. It's just life.....
I still find, today, though - I use a fair bit of "pirated software". I also pay for a LOT more of it than I did when I was younger, though.
Honestly, for me, it usually comes down to a simple "value judgment", with a little bit of "ethical justification" thrown in the mix too.
First and foremost, is the asking price of the software within my reach? If not, can I just use something different that's less expensive and get similar results? When the answer to BOTH question is no, then I'm liable to pirate it.
Secondly though, does the software I'm considering pirating come from a source I've given money to in the past? How much have they made from previous sales to me? Morally speaking, I'm far more "comfortable" with pirating a Microsoft or an Apple-branded app for personal use, because in the first case - I've been responsible for companies purchasing many tens of of thousands of dollars in MS software licenses over the years. These were usually licenses that would NOT have ever been purchased at all, if I wasn't cost-justifying them to people and promising our dept. would get them implemented for them afterwards. In the second case, I've bought close to 10 Apple Mac computers, 2 iPods, an iPhone, a retail copy of OS X Leopard, a copy of the iWorks suite, the iLife suite, and convinced 4 or 5 people I knew to buy a Mac, as well. Apple sure didn't ever give ME any commission on those sales I made for them! So if I decide to pirate something like Final Cut Studio (that I can't afford or cost-justify for the mere sake of "wanting to tinker with it, to learn it") - I don't feel bad.
Wow!
Well, like my dad (a physics teacher) used to always say, "The two most common elements in the Universe are hydrogen and stupidity!"
Interesting .... but frankly, the only circumstances I've ever run across where a company takes the "If you don't like it, sue us!" attitude towards software licensing is when they feel they've already put up with enough/too much from the vendor in question.
I really do think major corporations are more likely to stay compliant on licensing, because they've got more to lose for starters, and have more employees who keep tabs on such things. (Generally, a small business may have the owner him/herself purchasing the software that's used - and everyone just takes his/her word that's it's all legal. A mid-sized business often still has a similar situation, where one or two I.T. people are responsible for the software and licensing. And as we all know, they're usually more interested in getting a job done than in screwing around with a bunch of documentation and details of licenses.) With larger companies, though, you've got actual people hired to do the "software compliance" checks, or you have larger I.T. departments where an individual who might otherwise just run some cracked software is afraid his co-workers could turn him in for it.
I can't speak for your specific software package, but I have a strong suspicion it was a case where your customer felt "morally, even if not legally justified" in installing all the extra seats. Maybe they had poor support in the past (shelling out big $'s for a maintenance agreement that was relatively useless?) or something along those lines?
Yep, absolutely right! I'm constantly frustrated by the "Pronest" software our company uses. We purchased a "floating license" for it, where the client checks in with the license manager on a server to "take" the available license for only as long as it's running on a particular workstation.
Ok in theory, but in practice, a nightmare! I've had PCs that run into all sorts of problems where they can't communicate with the license server, so the app won't start. The "tech support FAQ" just recommends making sure the Crypkey service is running, and to re-register a bunch of .DLL files if it won't start. That only solved the problem for me in ONE instance.
It now looks like the license file itself on the server got damaged somehow, and NONE of the PCs will authorize against it. This is going to be a HUGE hassle, because the makers of this software make you jump through all sorts of hoops to request a new license key - especially for a "floating" network license.
Hardly the case...
The Blackberrys have the ability to be remote wiped of all data, for example.
And although no mention has really ever been made of it, I see no technical reason why other carriers like US Cellular couldn't easily "revoke/kill" purchased apps on their users' phones either? They use a DRM mechanism where they issue you a "key" when you download the app. Seems like a forced download of an update could cause all the apps to need a fresh key in order to keep running? (Unlike Apple, who has the whole iTunes store with actual user accounts on it though, you're screwed if your physical phone breaks with US Cellular. All your apps are just lost, period. You don't get to re-download them using some user acct. that "remembers" what you paid for previously.)
I fully understand and expect that my mobile phones are subject to more control by carriers than a "stand alone" device like my personal computer. If your #1 worry is getting to run whatever you want on your iPhone, vs. actually USING it as a CELLPHONE - then fine. Just re-flash the thing with whatever code you like. It's not a "non user updatable" device, obviously ... as all the "jailbreaks" prove.
All fine and good, but I'd counter-argue that if YOU can't comprehend why it's potentially very BENEFICIAL for a carrier to be able to globally "kill off" some new app that turns out to be a trojan horse, leaking out your private information everywhere ... then I don't know what to tell you, really?
It's one thing to claim you're "perfectly capable of deciding for yourself what you want on your phone" ... but another for that statement to be truly 100% accurate.
Working in I.T. as long as I have, I, too, like to feel "in control" of the devices I use. Most of the time, I know what I'm *trying* to install and leave out on the computers I use. But the problem comes in because none of us have time (or even the ability) to audit the source code for each program we install. We have to go on faith that apps do what they say, most of the time. We can pay other people to act as "watchdogs" for us, which is essentially what paid subscriptions for anti-virus/anti-spyware software really are. But ultimately, we still have to trust SOMEONE, or else we'd never install ANY new software on a computer, a phone, or other electronic device, out of fear it might destroy our data or send it where it's not supposed to go!
I generally agree, but you STILL have to do the research from all the angles.
EG. I needed to dig a new hole to put my mailbox back in the ground after it got hit by a car and knocked over. I promptly visited my neighborhood home-improvement store, and saw they offered 3 different post-hole diggers. The cheap model had wooden handles and looked uncomfortable to use. The middle model had steel handles with rubber grips on them, and features an easier-to-use action. Finally, the most expensive "pro grade" model seemed to be identical to the mid-grade version, except it was a little bit heavier (thicker metal handles, apparently?).
Thinking the mid-priced one was my best value, I spent my $42 for it and came home.
Guess what? It barely penetrated the rocky soil I had, so I struggled with it for quite a while to dig just a shallow little post hole. Finally, I got disgusted with it and tried a regular old long-handled shovel I had in my garage. Worked far better, since you could press it into the ground with a work boot, vs. having to throw it into the ground like a spear.
So my "good deal" at $42 was just a *waste* of $42.
I actually agree with this ruling, despite being at least a "small l" libertarian and hating government regulation.
Legal protection of "non compete" clauses amounts to giving an employer the ability to restrict an individual's freedom after they no longer have an employment contract with them.
A person should be free to use their knowledge and skills without artificial limitations imposed by force of law.
Amen to that! I already have a PS3 and a nice plasma HDTV (a refurb. I mail-ordered a year or so ago for an amazingly low price), but other than the Blade Runner box set, I haven't even purchased any blu-ray discs.
Sure, the quality is awesome ... but I was enjoying my movies on DVD just fine, before all the "HD" stuff came along. Most of the time, I don't even want to watch a movie more than once, anyway. If it's really good, I like owning it so I can show it to friends who might not have seen it before -- but being able to do that is only so valuable to me. Some standard-def DVD movie out of the discount bin for $5 or even $7? Sure, if I remember it was a classic, I'll grab it. But $30 and up? Nah....
I think you make a valid point. Gordo Cooper is certainly worthy of mention, if someone is going to cover this story.
But "absolutely depressing"? I don't come away with that, myself. Star Trek was a HUGELY popular TV show, that thrived against all odds at the time. For a while there, props were literally being created from stuff dug out of garbage dumpsters, due to a lack of funds. Its creator had a real vision and message of hope to express. It wasn't just another crappy sit-com cranked out to make a buck or two. It,arguably, did more to spark people's imaginations about the possibilities for space travel than anything else at the time. I can't prove it, but I sure would't be at all surprised to find that many of NASA's current and former employees would list Star Trek as one of their inspirations growing up.
This has never been true with using "anonymous forums" on the Internet, really.
For example, someone just recently commented on Craigslist's "Rants & Raves" forum how his brother was paid a visit by "Homeland Security" here in the USA, because he had posted an anonymous comment advocating the shooting of the current president.
Anonymous message forums I've seen and used never gave me a written guarantee that my identity would never be subject to being uncovered if I posted there. They merely function anonymous as a matter of "general practice", subject to the prevailing laws of the land.
IMHO, anyone posting hate speech or directly attacking people by name on an "anonymous" forum should be aware that they better use methods of their own to ensure they can't be traced back by IP address to their whereabouts. Relying on the forum to "shield" them from the law is a risky bet, at best.
While your Internet = CB radio analogy is ok, I'm in disagreement with the suggestion that govt. regulation and licensing was the main (or sole?) reason Ham radio developed a group of "more serious" users.
I'd argue that Ham radio was simply a far better, more useful technology. CB radio has always been hamstrung by govt. regulations limiting the power output (to what, 4 watts?), and only 40 channels total (plus the single sideband garbage that tries to squeeze more channels out of those 40, but usually winds up with poor quality audio and noise). Anyone wanting to do serious radio communications pretty much has to rule out CB, because the channels are too cluttered, reception is spotty, etc. In fact, MOST people using CB regularly are doing so in gross violation of the law, running "black market" signal boosters/amplifiers that let them transmit FAR more than what's legally allowed. Since this is "illegal" though, the quality of such amps tends to be very poor - causing bleed-over onto many other frequencies when they transmit.
By contrast, Ham radio has a whole "infrastructure" of repeater towers and such, more complex and cable radios, etc. You don't need to resort to some poorly made power amp to allow your friend to hear you speak if you're more than a few miles away from their location. The fact govt. requires a HAM license and enforces all sorts of usage rules (must broadcast your "callsign" when speaking, etc. etc.) isn't WHY it's popular. It's just bureaucracy they put up with to be able to use the technology.
Indeed, but as the old saying goes: "How do you eat an elephant? In many small bites, taken one at a time."
Politics has become corrupt and inaccessible enough for the "common man" at the federal level, there really isn't much you can do to change it. You get to vote for a president once every 4 years, and you get to plead to mostly deaf-ear turning congressmen and "representatives" to make changes in Washington for you. (If they *do* listen to you, it's usually just coincidence, because people with deeper pockets than you are paying them to do what happens to be the same thing you wanted.)
Where you can STILL make a difference is at the local level. Your individual voice is FAR more meaningful as a member of a local community than as a member of the U.S. citizenry as a whole.
I think change has to "trickle up" from the local and even state levels, so frying all these "small fish" consistently is about as effective a message as one can send.
Your comments are spot-on.... but I'd also add that the reasons most of these "diets" fail is precisely BECAUSE they're designed with being a "temporary measure" in mind.
People follow these weird diets that encourage eating an abundance of a particular category or two of food, while shunning many others. Obviously, that's going to get BORING after so long, and the dieter is going to slip back out of that routine. (In some cases, it may even deprive them of a needed vitamin or mineral - forcing them to give it up.)
Others offer well-balanced mixes of tasty food choices, but they encourage "laziness" on the part of the dieter, letting the company (Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, etc.) do the calorie counting for them. Once they tire of spending that much of a price premium to purchase everything from them -- they usually again fall into eating patterns of taking in more calories.
By the same token, there's considerable evidence that it's not even necessarily "bad" to be a little over the weight some chart claims is "ideal" for an individual. (Remember grandma's old thing about cleaning your plate, to stay healthy? Some studies show slightly overweight people get sick less often.)
As long as you stay reasonably active and make healthy food choices (not too many trans-fats or processed sugars, etc.), it's probably both natural and "ok" to gain a little weight as you age.
I hardly think today's Apple is "following Microsoft's path 15 years later"?
Apple puts out quite a few security updates, as far as I can see. My OS X software updates has offered me several of them consistently, every month or so.
The fact is though, market share of Apple Macs running OS X is still well under 10% -- and unlike Microsoft, I don't think Apple as a company is that concerned about it either.
Steve Jobs has said repeatedly that he doesn't aim to be dominant in sales, like Microsoft. He's more comfortable having a company catering to consumers and small business customers, willing to pay a premium for a perceived "higher end" computing experience.
If Apple's business model was anything like Microsoft's - they'd be slashing prices on iMacs and Mac Minis, making sure $200-400 price point systems were out there in every single Wal-Mart and OfficeMax store, and would probably have sold OS X on store shelves for ANY generic PC by now too.
This also means Apple has the luxury of not having to stop what they're doing and immediately jump on patching every new security flaw that comes along. Only big corporate/govt. users are the ones truly paranoid and insistent on this stuff being fixed NOW. Most consumer and small office users don't even READ about such flaws, much less make their purchasing decisions based on how quickly the manufacturer addresses the flaws.